ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Abolition of the Death Penalty

Callum McCaig: What steps the Government are taking to support the global abolition of the death penalty.

David Lidington: We oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and advocate global abolition. The Government support a number of programmes around the world to promote both abolition and a moratorium on executions in those countries where the death penalty is still on the statute book.

Callum McCaig: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he present a new strategy for the abolition of the death penalty, following on from the 2010 to 2015 strategy? Will that new strategy include Saudi Arabia?

David Lidington: We oppose the death penalty in every country in the world, including Saudi Arabia, where it is still part of the criminal law. The abolition of the death penalty remains integral to all the human rights work that my Department does.

Andrew Bridgen: I welcome the fact that the long-term trend is for reducing the number of executions and also the number of states carrying out executions. Will the Minister join me in expressing concern about areas of the world where that is not the case? Does he agree that if it is wrong to take a life, it is wrong for the state to take a life in revenge?

David Lidington: That is certainly my view, and the Government’s position is to oppose capital punishment. We need also to bear in mind that while capital punishment exists, it is potentially a risk for a British citizen, anywhere in the world, who might be found guilty of a criminal offence.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister share my horror that the United States remains in the top five countries for executing people, despite a reduction in the number of executions last year? When did he last speak to his American counterpart about the US record on executing people?

David Lidington: As I am sure the right hon. Lady knows, in the United States this is largely a matter for a state legislatures and state governments, rather than for the federal Government. We do take up cases with the relevant authorities, as appropriate, and when the lawyers and British citizens ask us to do so.

Mark Pritchard: Belarus is the only country in Europe that still executes its citizens. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that in the past three months two of its citizens have been sentenced to death? If Belarus wants to become a full member of the Council of Europe, should it not abide by international norms and the European regulations?

David Lidington: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says. In all our dealings with the Belarusian Government, we do make clear the need for them not only to move to international and European standards on capital punishment, but to take action to improve what remains a dismal human rights record in that country.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to the Minister’s answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), is he aware of the concerns of Reprieve that drugs manufactured by a UK company Hikma Pharmaceuticals were exported last year to the state of Arkansas for use in lethal injections? Hikma has told me in correspondence that it does not export for this purpose but that
	“any sales to these entities usually occur through the use of distributors”.
	This seems such an obvious loophole, so why is nobody closing it?

David Lidington: I am happy to look into the case that the right hon. Gentleman describes and to write to him in due course.

Syria Peace Talks

Helen Hayes: What assessment he has made of recent progress on the Syria peace talks.

Philip Hammond: On 11 February, the International Syria Support Group, meeting in Munich, reached agreement to deliver humanitarian assistance to besieged communities and to implement a cessation of hostilities. I am pleased to say that the first deliveries of aid have now been made, and yesterday there was an announcement of agreement between Russia and the United States on the detailed arrangements for the cessation of hostilities, which will come into force at midnight on Saturday. If that cessation is fully implemented—faithfully implemented—by all the parties, this could be an important step towards a lasting political settlement in Syria.

Helen Hayes: The bombing of two hospitals and other health facilities in northern Syria is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of international humanitarian law. Does the Minister agree that those responsible must be brought to justice and that that reinforces the need for the UN Security Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady identifies an incident that has caused widespread outrage across the world, but in her question she has put her finger on the problem: a referral to the International Criminal Court requires a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, one veto-holding member of which is the Russian Federation, so it is unlikely that we will succeed going down that route.

Crispin Blunt: Turkish policy towards Syrian Kurdish forces seems inconsistent with our own; inconsistent with the prospect of supporting Syrian peace talks; and inconsistent with the opportunity to form a united front against Daesh. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right that the Syrian Kurds are an important part of the equation and they have to be brought into any enduring solution in Syria, but Turkey has a problem with links between PKK—a terrorist group that is designated as such in both Turkey and the UK—and Syrian Kurdish groups. There are overlaying conflicts here, and the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is a major complicating factor. What we have seen over the past weeks is very disturbing evidence of co-ordination between Syrian Kurdish forces, the Syrian regime and the Russian Air Force, which is making us distinctly uneasy about the Kurds’ role in all of this.

Ben Bradshaw: With the Russian indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Syria driving the refugee crisis in a deliberate foreign policy tool to destabilise and weaken Europe, does the Secretary of State agree that now is not the time even to talk about weakening EU sanctions against the Putin regime?

Philip Hammond: I very strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that now is not the time to send Russia any signals of compromise or of pulling back. The only language that Mr Putin understands is the language of strength and, I am afraid, the language of confrontation. When unacceptable behaviour on the scale that we have seen in Syria occurs, we have to stand up to be counted however inconvenient that may be for some who have to be counted.

Edward Leigh: Whether we like it or not, Russia is an essential prerequisite to any successful talks. The American Secretary of State has a close working relationship with the Russian Foreign Minister, talking to him nearly every week. When did the Foreign Secretary last talk to the Russian Foreign Minister and what is he doing to improve his personal relationship with him?

Philip Hammond: Our relationships with our Russian counterparts are difficult. I last spoke to Sergei Lavrov on 11 February during the Munich International Syria Support Group meeting where he and I had some prolonged and robust exchanges around the table. I do speak very regularly with the US Secretary of State, most recently meeting him on Saturday morning, so I am very much aware of the discussions that he is having with our mutual Russian counterpart. The problem is that Russian policy on Syria is made not in the Russian Foreign Ministry, but inside a tiny cabal around President Putin at the heart of the Kremlin.

Lisa Cameron: What dialogue has the Minister had with our French counterparts as a result of the Syrian crisis regarding the safety and child protection arrangements for unaccompanied child refugees who are at grave risk and who are due to be dispersed from the jungle camp in Calais?

Philip Hammond: I have had discussions about the situation in Syria with my former French counterpart who retired the week before last and with my new French counterpart, Jean-Marc Ayrault, on a regular basis. The issues relating to would-be migrants accumulated around Calais are for the Home Secretary, and she has very regular discussions with her counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve.

Alec Shelbrooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is absolutely right that the Russians are a key part to establishing a meaningful political settlement in Syria. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that does not mean that we give in to the Russians across the rest of Europe and that the NATO commitment in the Baltic states is just as important to counterbalance whatever partnerships we use the Russians for in Syria?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. We are dealing with a raised level of Russian assertiveness—indeed, aggression—in many areas: in the Baltic, in Ukraine, and now in the middle east, and we have to be robust in all areas. He is also right—and our hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was right—that Russia holds the key to the situation in Syria. I have said in the House before, and I shall say again today, that there is one person in the world who has the power to bring the misery in Syria to an end by picking up the phone and making one phone call, and that person is Vladimir Putin.

Diana R. Johnson: The whole House will welcome the ceasefire agreement, which is badly needed, but there have been promises from Russia before. The Russians have repeatedly claimed to attack terrorist groups when, in fact, they have attacked moderate opposition forces and civilians, so can the Foreign Secretary set out how breaches of the ceasefire agreement will be assessed?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady has put her finger on the problem. The ceasefire agreement will allow continued operations against Daesh, al-Nusra and associated terrorist groups designated by the UN Security Council, and no one would disagree with that. The problem is that the Russians claim that all their action to date has been against those groups. On the face of it, the Russians could be entering into this arrangement on the basis that they will not change their behaviour at all. Clearly, the cessation of hostilities will fail before it has even got off the ground if that is their intention, so everything hinges on Russian good intentions.

Diana R. Johnson: So can the Foreign Secretary explain what consideration has been given to a UN resolution to strengthen the ceasefire agreement and support the peace talks?

Philip Hammond: First, an arrangement has been agreed between the Russians and Americans for investigating alleged breaches of the ceasefire, and there is a commitment on both sides to working up a co-ordination cell to try to identify legitimate targets that can be struck during the ceasefire. As for the UN dimension, we are looking at that, and we would very much welcome a UN resolution behind the ceasefire. We already have UN resolution 2254, which we agreed on 18 December in New York, but we welcome further UN resolutions. That can only happen if the Russians are prepared to work with us, because they have a veto.

Kurdistan: ISIL/Daesh

Nusrat Ghani: What diplomatic support the Government are providing in Kurdistan to tackle ISIL/Daesh.

Tobias Ellwood: Daesh is progressively being defeated in Iraq as the competence of Iraqi security forces improves. Specifically on Kurdistan, we are providing the Peshmerga with air power, logistical support, weapons and training.

Nusrat Ghani: Reports suggest that 45% of Kurdish forces are composed of women. Nesrîn Abdalla, a unit commander in the Syrian Kurds women’s protection units, recently said:
	“We do this not just to protect ourselves, but also to change the way of thinking in the army, not only to gain power, but to change society, to develop it.”
	What particular steps have the Government taken to ensure women’s participation in regional diplomatic talks, post-Daesh?

Tobias Ellwood: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that quote and for the work that she has done in pioneering the role that women can play? That is something that Staffan de Mistura, the UN envoy, recognises, and he is trying to include women’s voices in the peace talks that are taking place at the UN. On our front, British training is taking place in northern Iraq, and UK training teams will train female units in the Peshmerga.

Ian Lucas: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who chairs the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, what is the Minister’s current assessment of relations between the Turkish Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government?

Tobias Ellwood: It is an important relationship that the two are developing, not least because there are economic benefits for both from the sale and movement of oil. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has outlined, there are concerns in Turkey because of the role, involvement and influence of the PKK, and we will monitor that carefully.

Natalie McGarry: Since the breakdown of the peace process last summer, there have been reports of an escalation in violence and of breaches of human rights in south-eastern Turkey in Kurdish areas such as Diyarbakir and Cizre, with the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, curfews, the imprisonment of democratically elected politicians who would be key interlocutors in any future peace process, the imprisonment of academics, and lack of access for journalists to key areas. Will the Minister assure me that that will form part of the peace talks on Syria?

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. I was able to raise the matter during my visit to the north of Iraq at the end of last year. We are concerned about the reports of alleged human rights abuses and we need to make sure that those are not overlooked.

Kashmir

Julie Cooper: If he will take steps to support self-determination for the people of Kashmir.

Hugo Swire: rose—

Mr Speaker: Aah!

Hugo Swire: The pleasure is entirely mutual, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s courtesy in notifying me of his travel plans. I know that he has only relatively recently got off a plane, so we are delighted to have him here, especially in view of the fact, of which he has previously informed the House, that he is responsible for three quarters of the world.

Hugo Swire: Mr Speaker, you have just stolen my first line again.
	On this important subject, it is, I repeat, for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator.

Julie Cooper: Undoubtedly, this House has a great deal of respect for UN resolutions, and I am sure the Minister is aware that in 1948 the UN Security Council passed resolution 47 instructing the Governments of India and Pakistan to prepare for a plebiscite to determine the future of Kashmir. Almost 70 years have passed, thousands of Kashmiri men, women and children have been slaughtered, atrocities are committed daily, yet there is still no sign of any action to allow these people to vote on this most important issue. Does the Minister agree that the people of Kashmir should have the right to self-determination, and will he give an assurance—

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope she is near the end of the sentence.

Julie Cooper: Will the Minister assure us that the British Government will do everything in their power to make that happen?

Hugo Swire: We do not intend to support an international conference or plebiscite on Kashmir. Our long-standing position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution. We are acutely aware of the allegations of human rights abuses in Kashmir. This was discussed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when Prime Minister Modi was here in November 2015, and we continue to monitor the situation closely.

David Nuttall: Many of my constituents who are of Kashmiri origin and heritage take the view that this entire problem was left behind by the UK when we ruled that area. Does not the Minister feel that there is an obligation on the UK to take a more proactive role and to do something positive to bring about a resolution to this long-running problem?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are talking about two sovereign countries, India and Pakistan. It is not for the United Kingdom to come between them, other than to urge them to talk. There are some good moves and communications between the leaders of Pakistan and India and they are discussing the subject, among other things, which we very much welcome.

Chris Leslie: But I would say to the Minister that the situation has been going on for decades, and the UK has some expertise in building more peaceful settlements. Is there not a bit more that the UK could do to promote confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan, and at the very least raise this as a priority with the EU special representative so that some of our other allies know that this is more of a priority?

Hugo Swire: We do things as best we can without getting directly involved, and we welcome the fact that on 25 December Prime Minister Modi visited Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan, the first such visit for 11 years. That must be good news, but the hon. Gentleman knows full well the long-standing position of the Government—and when he was in government the position was no different—that this is a matter for the Indians and the Pakistanis to resolve, not the United Kingdom.

Commonwealth: Trade and Diplomatic Connections

Maggie Throup: What steps the Government is taking to promote trade and diplomatic connections between the UK and other Commonwealth countries.

Hugo Swire: The United Kingdom is committed to strengthening the engagement with the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led a strong delegation to the Commonwealth summit in November, where my noble Friend, Lord Maude, then the Minister for Trade and Investment, and I promoted trade opportunities within the Commonwealth.

Maggie Throup: The renaissance in British manufacturing and engineering is not only testament to the Government’s determination to rebalance our country’s economy, but has greatly contributed to a record 62% fall in unemployment in my constituency since 2010. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our historic links—especially trade links—with other Commonwealth countries are vital to the continued success of those sectors and to the jobs they support?

Hugo Swire: I am pleased to hear the figures from my hon. Friend’s constituency, and they can be echoed around the country as a result of the Government’s economic policies. We are an open, free-trading state, and we trade around the world. Trade within the Commonwealth is extremely important, and we need to do more to promote it. Trading between two Commonwealth countries is, on the whole, 19% or 20% cheaper than trading outside the Commonwealth. That is something we need to do, and we need to involve Commonwealth Trade Ministers more formally in working out how we can increase intra-Commonwealth trade.

Keith Vaz: Last year, Prime Minister Modi and our Prime Minister designated next year as the year of culture between India and the United Kingdom. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the British curry festival, which is taking place in New Delhi in March? British chefs from Leicester, London and Reading will be going to Delhi to make curry. Does he not agree that that is a real example of good relations between Commonwealth countries?

Hugo Swire: At the risk of currying favour with the right hon. Gentleman, let me say that we must all wish our curry chefs every success when they travel to India. We must hope that they make a speedy return, because we would all miss our curry were they not home in our country.

Mark Field: Characteristically—or maybe uncharacteristically—the Minister has more or less answered the question I was going to ask. Leaving aside trade between the UK and Commonwealth countries, the functioning of the Commonwealth will surely be enhanced if there is more trade between all Commonwealth countries. To what extent can the UK play a role in enhancing that intra-Commonwealth trade, particularly in areas where we have substantial Department for International Development, as well as Foreign Office, representation?

Hugo Swire: It is as well to remember that we are an equal partner in the Commonwealth; we do not run the Commonwealth, and we wish Baroness Scotland every success in so doing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She clearly has the universal support of the House, which is manifestly a good thing. We want her to refocus the Commonwealth, and we want to spend much more time—similar issues are being discussed elsewhere in the world—discussing boosting trade, getting rid of tariffs and promoting intra-Commonwealth trade. That we can do. My noble Friend Lord Marland is doing a great job at the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, and he had a great collection of 2,000 businesses at Valletta. We are hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here in 2018, and business will play a large role in that Commonwealth conference.

Barry Sheerman: May I ask a more serious question about the Commonwealth and diplomatic relations? How many members of the
	Commonwealth do not have an extradition agreement with this country? Increasingly, people who commit ghastly crimes flee to Pakistan, and we cannot bring them back to face justice? What is he doing about that?

Hugo Swire: That is a very wide-ranging accusation. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, or come to see me, about a specific case, I will be happy to look at it. We deal with things case by case.

EU Referendum

Chris Stephens: What progress the Government have made on preparations for the EU referendum.

Kirsty Blackman: What progress the Government have made on preparations for the EU referendum.

David Lidington: The conduct regulations that set out the detailed framework of how the referendum poll will be administered have now been agreed by both Houses of Parliament. The date of the referendum must now be agreed by Parliament in a further statutory instrument, which was laid before both Houses in draft yesterday.

Chris Stephens: A record number of people registered to vote in the Scottish independence referendum— 97% of the adult population. What efforts are the UK Government making to match that success?

David Lidington: This is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the responsibility of the Electoral Commission, which is planning a campaign to raise awareness of the need to register in good time for the referendum.

Kirsty Blackman: Will the Minister give comfort to the Scottish students who are studying through Erasmus across Europe by providing details of what contingency plans are in place should there be a no vote in the EU referendum?

David Lidington: My advice to Scottish students studying in universities elsewhere in the EU would be to ensure that they are registered to vote so that their votes in the referendum count along with everybody else’s. The hon. Lady puts her finger on one of the uncertainties about a potential British exit from the European Union, because, after all, it is European law and the treaties that give British citizens the right to live, study and work in other EU countries.

Paula Sherriff: The Minister may recall that in response to my amendment to the Finance Bill last year, the Government promised to negotiate with the European Commission for a zero rate of VAT on women’s sanitary products, and the Chancellor repeated that pledge in his autumn statement. It is time the tampon tax was ended, so did the Prime Minister use his recent negotiations to raise this issue and, if so, what progress has been made?

David Lidington: As I think the hon. Lady knows, value added tax was already part of the EU system before the United Kingdom joined the European Community in the 1970s. A review of the current EU directives on value added tax is due to take place this year, and that is the appropriate forum in which to raise this issue, where the Government very much hope to secure the reforms about which she speaks.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Successive UK Governments have signed up to a range of EU agreements vital in protecting our environment, upholding workers’ rights, and ensuring an EU-wide energy market. The removal of such environmental controls and statutory maternity pay, for example, would be a backward step. I am sure, therefore, that the Minister will agree that our membership of the EU is vital in promoting the interests of the people of Scotland and across the UK. However, he will be aware that the Justice Secretary said last week that
	“our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives.”
	Can the Minister therefore confirm specifically—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Finish the sentence, very quickly.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Can the Minister therefore confirm specifically how his Government’s plans have been constrained by European legislation or regulation?

David Lidington: As with every member state of the EU, particular issues will come up—particular legislative measures—where we find some of the rulings irksome. On balance, however, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out very clearly yesterday, the Government are convinced that membership of a reformed European Union will make the British people more prosperous, more secure, and more influential in the world than any of the alternatives so far proposed.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: It is therefore important that voters have the full facts at their disposal when making a choice in June. Have the Government calculated the cost of implementing the proposals agreed at the EU Council last week, particularly those relating to the administration of the new benefits rules? What will the net saving to the Treasury be?

David Lidington: Some of this will be a matter for the implementing regulations that will now follow, both at European level and at national level. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question will depend in large part on the level of benefits and tax credits in the United Kingdom at the appropriate time. These matters will therefore become clear as time goes on.

Nigel Evans: I wish the Minister great success in trying to alter the level of VAT on sanitary towels. If the British people decide in the referendum to leave the European Union, would it then be up to the British Government to decide the level of VAT on sanitary towels and other products?

David Lidington: That would depend on the nature of the subsequent relationship. The reason that value added tax has, since before our membership of the EU, been dealt with, to an extent, at EU level is that the price at which goods are sold has a direct impact on the notion of a single market and free trade within Europe. The issues that my hon. Friend raises would have to be tackled in the course of negotiations about such a future relationship.

Oil

Martin Vickers: What assessment his Department has made of the effects of high oil supply and low oil and gas prices on (a) Russia and (b) countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Tobias Ellwood: Brent oil prices are hovering around $30 a barrel—the lowest in 13 years—as a consequence of lower global demand, continued high OPEC production and the resilient production in the USA. GCC countries are taking action. They are, in fact, diversifying their economies and removing subsidies. Historically, about half of the Russian Government’s revenues have come from oil and gas, and Russia’s GDP declined by just under 4% last year.

Martin Vickers: Falling oil prices are clearly having a dramatic effect on the economies of many oil-producing countries. I was part of a delegation that visited Saudi Arabia last week, where we heard about what its Government is doing to diversify. What encouragement are our Government giving to other countries to help and support them to diversify, and what opportunities are available to British companies to provide assistance?

Tobias Ellwood: As my hon. Friend outlines, there are enormous opportunities not just in Saudi Arabia but across the Gulf. We are working on diversification with countries that produce and export hydrocarbons, and helping them with renewables and green energy. Saudi Arabia has also expressed an interest in opening up tourism. Those are important aspects in which Britain can play an important role.

Daesh

Nadhim Zahawi: What discussions he has had with other members of the international coalition on improving diplomatic co- ordination against Daesh.

Michael Tomlinson: What discussions he has had with other members of the international coalition on improving diplomatic co-ordination against Daesh.

Philip Hammond: Britain was a driving force behind the creation of the global coalition. We hosted the first coalition meeting in London in January 2015. I frequently discuss the campaign against Daesh with coalition and other international partners, including at a coalition small group meeting in Rome earlier this month.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Kurdistan Regional Government army has been valiantly battling against Daesh over a 1,000 km frontline since summer 2014. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the peshmerga and say more about the role they may play in the liberation of Mosul?

Philip Hammond: I am very happy to pay tribute to the peshmerga. They have proved themselves to be an extraordinarily resilient fighting force and perhaps the most effective force operating against Daesh. The UK is training and providing equipment to the peshmerga. I had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to meet President Barzani of the KRG, to talk about the liberation of Mosul and the role that the peshmerga might play. I am pleased to be able to report two things. First, the KRG appear to have become more open to the idea that the peshmerga will play a role in the liberation of Mosul. That will be very important. They have also agreed to Iraqi Government security forces being based in the KRG to prepare for the assault on Mosul. Those two things make it much more likely that we will see a successful assault on Mosul earlier rather than later.

Michael Tomlinson: Seeking a diplomatic solution in Syria has gone hand in hand with our humanitarian aid in the region. Will the Secretary of State set out how increased diplomatic co-operation will improve and assist our humanitarian aid in the region, specifically in neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon?

Philip Hammond: As the whole House will know, we hosted in London on 4 February a very successful conference on Syria and the region, raising $11 billion in a single day. The real significance of that meeting, however, was that we moved on from the idea of simply collecting money and distributing it to working with the host countries in the region to ensure that refugees are able to access the labour market, get education for their children and access healthcare, making them less likely to feel the need to decamp and become irregular migrants heading towards Europe.

Gisela Stuart: Daesh moves into areas of conflict and ungoverned spaces. King Abdullah of Jordan has asked that we reach out to areas such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Kosovo, as he regards them to be among the next potential trouble spots. Are we making any progress?

Philip Hammond: Yes. The hon. Lady is right. We should be very much focused not only on the countries that already face that challenge, but on the countries that are next in line for the challenge, and we should seek to reinforce them. I am happy to tell her, if she was not aware of this, that the Prime Ministers of all the western Balkan countries were in London yesterday, and I had the opportunity to meet the Prime Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro. We are working closely with them to ensure the resilience and the European trajectory of that region.

Nigel Dodds: On the issue of Daesh fighters returning home to countries here in Europe, what diplomatic co-ordination efforts have been made to develop a common response among countries in Europe to ensure that we keep our citizens safe and prevent those people from coming back to wreak havoc, through terrorism, on towns and cities in the UK?

Philip Hammond: Different countries in Europe have different domestic legislation around that issue. We in the UK have some of the most robust measures available to us to deal with returning fighters. It is precisely because of the importance of the exchange of information between European partners that the Prime Minister was able to confirm yesterday that we believe that Britain is safer and more resilient against the threat of terrorism because of its co-operation within the European Union.

Royston Smith: As operations against Daesh in Iraq are successful—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. There is some chuntering from a sedentary position, by which he should not remotely be deflected. Stick to your course, man.

Royston Smith: You are very kind, Mr Speaker. As operations against Daesh in Iraq are successful, what is the threat of Daesh’s moving to Libya? Has the Foreign Secretary made an assessment of that eventuality?

Philip Hammond: There is clearly a risk that as Daesh is militarily defeated in Iraq and then in Syria, the embryonic Daesh presence in Libya, particularly around Sirte, could become a new base for operations just 100 miles off the coast of Europe. That is why we are working with our partners and allies to encourage the formation of a Libyan Government of national accord that we can work with to start stabilising the country and pushing back on the Daesh footholds in Libya.

Derek Twigg: Further to the last question, can the Foreign Secretary say how far ahead we are in bringing about that co-ordination and establishing a stable authority in Libya to take on Daesh? We have seen recently an increase in Daesh activity, and there is still a lot of disconnect between the different bodies in Libya. Will he give us a bit more information about what progress is being made?

Philip Hammond: There is progress being made among European partners and with the US on preparing the kind of support we could give to a Government of national accord in Libya when and if one is formed. The problem is that several months after we first expected that to happen, the Government have still not been formed. We are working very closely with the parties in Libya and with the regional powers who have influence, particularly Egypt, to encourage Prime Minister Siraj to take the necessary steps to get that Government formed and approved so that we can engage. There is a strong commitment by the European partners to engage once that Government have been created.

Israeli Election

Clive Lewis: What assessment he has made of the effect of the outcome of the March 2015 election in Israel on the peace process in that region.

Tobias Ellwood: Much gets said, as we know, during election cycles, and we were concerned by some of the statements that were made during the Israeli election. I was in Israel last week, and I can confirm that I had meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He has made it very clear that he remains committed to the two-state solution.

Clive Lewis: It is more than 20 years since Oslo. There are now more than 350,000 illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied west bank and 300,000 illegal Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem, and the Netanyahu Government continue to announce the building of more illegal settlements. Does the Minister believe that that will aid the peace process? If not, what is he doing about it?

Tobias Ellwood: The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have made it very clear on the record that that is unhelpful and takes us in the wrong direction. During my visit last week, I visited some of the settlements that are developing. Although announcements of new settlements have slowed, the existing settlements are starting to grow, and that happens without people seeing it. There is an area to the north of Jerusalem called the Ariel finger, which, if it continues to grow as it is doing, will eventually link up towards the north of Jericho. That will essentially mean that there will be no two-state solution. We need Israel to show that it is committed to the process and stop the settlements.

Andrew Percy: On the issue of words, something that is regularly rubbished is the issue of incitement. We are seeing increasing incitement from the Palestinian Authority and on media such as Palestinian TV, some of which has been referenced by those committing knife attacks on civilians. Last week I visited a Jewish school in Brussels, where I heard some appalling stories of anti-Semitism being perpetrated in Europe, with people deliberately conflating Jews and Israel. Will the Minister condemn not only the incitement coming out of the Palestinian Authority, but the sort of attacks we are seeing in Europe as a result?

Tobias Ellwood: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is unacceptable for Israelis going about their business to be subject to some of the brutality and the murder we are seeing. Israel has the right—in fact, I would go further and say it has the obligation—to defend its citizens. We are seeing the anti-Semitism there, or such reactions, then reappearing, often through websites such as Facebook and so forth, in Europe or closer to home. We have been working hard with our international colleagues—the Prime Minister is very committed to this—to make sure that we stamp out anti-Semitism no matter where it is.

Louise Ellman: A clear majority of Israelis consistently support setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Does the Minister agree that actions such as Hamas’s rebuilding the terror tunnels to mount attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza make that less and less obtainable?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. With some of the developments, it seems like déjà vu in the sense that we are going round this buoy again—rebuilding the tunnels, the aggravations, and then the missiles start to fly. Where does that actually take us? It is not a confidence-building measure, in the same way that building settlements is not a confidence-building measure. We need to make sure that we empower the Palestinian Authority to look after and take responsibility for the governance of Gaza. That is the way forward.

Eric Pickles: Surely there is a big contrast in the growth of extremism. The Israeli authorities deal with Jewish extremism—they investigate, they prosecute and they condemn—whereas the Palestinian Authority names schools after violent extremists, names sporting events after them and glorifies them on television. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn absolutely the attitude of the Palestinian Authority and urge it to cease this senseless encouragement of violence?

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful argument. It is important to see that affirmative actions can be taken on both sides to reduce tensions, but I would raise the specific matter of using words to inflame the situation. For example, the recent remarks by Health Minister in the Palestinian Authority condoning the attacks that are taking place were unhelpful. That takes us in the wrong direction, so we should do things to encourage those involved to refrain from doing so, and take steps to encourage them to act as a consequence.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I wish we had more time, but I am afraid we do not. I call Nic Dakin.

Overseas Territories: Registers of Beneficial Ownership

Nicholas Dakin: By what date he expects to have set a timetable for overseas territories with financial centres to adopt central registers of beneficial ownership or similarly effective systems.

James Duddridge: I had productive discussions at the Joint Ministerial Council with leaders of the overseas territories in December. We agreed progress on implementing central registers, and equally effective systems should be kept under continuous and close review. Discussions are still ongoing, but I want to see significant progress ahead of the anti-corruption summit that will be hosted by the Prime Minister in May.

Nicholas Dakin: Will the Minister confirm that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies will attend the summit? Will we do our part to make sure that we secure their commitment to clean up their act and make company owners public?

James Duddridge: Final invitations for the summit have not yet gone out, but discussions are very much ongoing. In fact, the director for overseas territories and the National Crime Agency are currently visiting the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands to thrash out some of the detail that is needed.

Nigel Mills: Does the Minister expect the registers to be publicly available, or will they be closed registers that can be accessed only by the relevant authorities?

James Duddridge: There will be open registers available for law enforcement agencies to interrogate. There will not be publicly open registers. That is a long-term aspiration, but initially we want there to be access for law enforcement agencies. That will create greater transparency and reduce corruption and terrorist payments.

Catherine West: In April 2014, the Prime Minister said:
	“I believe that beneficial ownership and public access to a central register is key to improving the transparency of company ownership and vital to meeting the urgent challenges of illicit finance and tax evasion.”
	Nearly two years have passed and there still appears to be no timetable for transparency arrangements in respect of the financial centres. Why is that?

James Duddridge: There has been much progress, which the hon. Lady dismisses too readily. There are checkpoints. Only last week, I spoke to overseas territory leaders. There are people out there at the moment and we hope to crystallise some of the improvements before the May summit on corruption. That summit was called by the Prime Minister and will be held here in London, which demonstrates the British Government’s commitment to this important issue.

Catherine West: Will the Minister tell the House the exact date by which he expects overseas territory financial centres to ensure that there are proper transparency arrangements, or will we continue to hear more excuses for inaction in the years to come?

James Duddridge: This is a matter of direction, rather than an ultimate destination. We will constantly ask the international community to do more to create greater transparency, but it is crucial that the international community, whether it is the Crown dependencies, the overseas territories or other overseas Governments, move together on this, because we want to eliminate the problem of corrupt and untransparent moneys, rather than shift it from territory to territory.

Topical Questions

Mr Speaker: I remind colleagues that in topical questions, there are supposed to be quick-fire questions and quick-fire answers.

Ranil Jayawardena: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: The Foreign Office’s mission is to protect Britain’s security, promote Britain’s prosperity and project our values through our diplomacy. The Prime Minister’s deal with the European Union offers the basis for Britain’s future prosperity and security in Europe. The crisis in Syria, the resulting irregular migration to Europe, the increased levels of Russian aggression and the continuing terrorist threat from Islamist extremism remain the principal threats to the security of the UK and UK citizens around the world.

Ranil Jayawardena: I should refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my position as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka. As we know from Northern Ireland, reconciliation is possible only if both sides want to move forward. Will my right hon. Friend welcome the progress that has been made by the Sri Lankan Government in uniting the whole island by growing the economy and building a strong democracy? Indeed, will he encourage them to continue doing so?

Hugo Swire: Yes, I most certainly will. I was in Sri Lanka last month, where I met the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and travelled to Jaffna in the north. I have subsequently spoken to Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the high commissioner in Geneva, who was in Sri Lanka from 6 to 9 February. We look forward to his update on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council in June.

Hilary Benn: As events in Ukraine and the middle east have reminded us, nations that are committed to peace, security and democracy need to stand together in the face of aggression. Our membership of the European Union is one of the most important ways in which we do that. The Foreign Secretary knows that ending our alliance with the EU would send a dangerous signal, including to President Putin and Daesh. Why does he think some of his Cabinet colleagues cannot see that and are intent on a course of action that would weaken Britain’s voice and influence in the world and undermine our security?

Philip Hammond: Each person in this country will have to make up their own mind about the question before them in the forthcoming referendum. I have always said that this is a balancing equation—there are plusses and minuses in any international relationship. However, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that on the question of Britain’s security and influence in the world, there is no doubt that we are stronger, safer and more influential by being part of the European Union than being out of it.

Hilary Benn: I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. The report of the UN Human Rights Council’s commission of inquiry on Syria, which was published earlier this month, found that:
	“Flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law continue unabated”.
	The ceasefire that is due to come into effect this Saturday is desperately needed, but it will relieve suffering only if it is adhered to, as the Foreign Secretary said. What is his assessment of the prospects of ensuring that Russia respects the ceasefire by ending its attacks on the Syrian people? If it does not, what further pressure can be put on President Putin to do so?

Philip Hammond: As I have said, the Russians will say that they are complying with the ceasefire, and that continued attacks and airstrikes are justified by the terms of that ceasefire. It will be necessary to pore over individual attacks between the US and Russia in the co-ordination cell to identify exactly what happened. Whatever the technicalities, the big picture is this: unless the level of Russian airstrikes dramatically decreases, the ceasefire will not hold because the moderate armed opposition cannot and will not lay down their weapons while they are being annihilated from the air by Russian aircraft.

Stephen Phillips: My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa will be aware that the Tanzanian electoral commission annulled the general election results in Zanzibar at the back end of last year, and there has been increasing electoral violence in Zanzibar as we head towards the poll on 20 March. What representations will we make to the Tanzanian Government to ensure that the poll passes off peacefully, and that we do not return to the violence of 2000 and 2001?

James Duddridge: We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Zanzibar electoral commission to annul the elections for the Zanzibar presidency, and indeed the House of Representatives on 28 October. Our position was set out in a statement by the British high commissioner on 29 October, and we have raised those concerns at the highest level, including when the Foreign Secretary made a telephone call to then President Kikwete in October and my telephone call to the new Foreign Minister Mahiga in December, and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), met the same individual in January. I hope to visit Tanzania in the coming months and reinforce those points in person.

Angela Rayner: Given the Minister’s response to earlier questions relating to the benefit to the UK of remaining in the EU, is it not a real concern that many of his Government colleagues would put our security and economic future at risk by a Brexit?

David Lidington: In this referendum, Members of Parliament will each have one vote, along with every member of the United Kingdom electorate. In my experience, there are deeply held views both for and against British membership of the EU in my party and that of the hon. Lady. My view is clear: this country will be more prosperous, secure and influential in the world through continued EU membership.

Andrew Murrison: Given the ongoing Russian incursion into Georgian sovereign territory, does my right hon. Friend absolutely condemn the situation in the southern Caucasus? Does he think that the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia must now be regarded as the new normal?

Philip Hammond: We should be alert to Russia’s aggressive actions in former Soviet Union countries wherever they are, not just in Ukraine. Arguably, we were too slow to recognise that what was happening in Georgia was the beginning of a new dimension to Russian foreign policy, and we should resist it robustly wherever it arises, and push back against it wherever we can.

Patrick Grady: Will the Secretary of States confirm whether his discussions with the United States about Libya have included the possibility of UK military action, and that there will be no UK military action in Libya without approval from this House?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we have a long-established convention that before committing UK forces to combat, in all situations where it is possible—that is, other than in a direct emergency or where considerations of secrecy make it impossible—the Prime Minister is committed to bringing the issue before the House and allowing it an opportunity for debate.

Chris Heaton-Harris: What assessment has the Department made of the security situation in Burundi, and what steps have been taken to bolster the presence of Her Majesty’s Government in Bujumbura?

James Duddridge: In response to the crisis, the UK has stepped up humanitarian support to refugees fleeing Burundi, providing £14 million to Tanzania and £4 million to Burundi. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), and I have also decided to recruit a full-time Burundian co-ordinator, based in Bujumbura. That will be good news as I know that hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—have been pressing Her Majesty’s Government to do that, and it will be welcome news on both sides of the House.

Stephen Kinnock: On 12 January, the Secretary of State told this House that China’s claim to be treated as a market economy should be judged through the prism of steel. Given that 70% of the Chinese steel industry is owned by the Chinese Government, will the Secretary of State now confirm that China should emphatically not be granted market economy status?

Philip Hammond: I think what the hon. Gentleman will find if he checks the record is that I had just come back from China where I had conveyed the message to the Chinese that their claim to market economy status, and the European Union’s consideration of that claim, would be judged through the prism of their actions in relation to steel. They gave me assurances then, as they gave us assurances in October, that they are seeking to address overcapacity in the Chinese market. We have just had a discussion this morning about this in Cabinet. I learned this morning that there are protests in China about the loss of steel jobs, just as there are in the UK and in other places throughout Europe. The reality is that we have a massive surplus of steel capacity throughout the world and we have to address it.

Luke Hall: Following the recent action against Daesh in Libya, will my hon. Friend update the House on the situation there, as well as his plans to create a permanent memorial to the victims of Sousse, whose murders were planned from Libya?

Tobias Ellwood: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has outlined, there is a migration and a concern that Daesh is moving out, under pressure in Iraq and Syria, to other parts of the world, including Libya. My hon. Friend is right to make the connection between what happened in Libya, the training and the terrorist attack that took place in
	Sousse killing so many Britons. I am pleased to say that we will hold a memorial service on 12 April to mark this event.

Rushanara Ali: A recent UN report suggested that, in a disturbing violation of human rights, Saudi Arabia’s military operation in Yemen is targeting civilians. Is the Minister confident that the UK Government are fulfilling their obligations under the arms trade treaty in relation to Saudi Arabia?

Tobias Ellwood: We have discussed, and are looking in detail at, the UN panel of experts report. It was done by satellite evidence—we have to bear it in mind that the experts did not actually visit the country itself. We have shared and discussed information with Saudi Arabia. I had a letter from the ambassador this week confirming that every effort is being made to follow human rights law in support of President Hadi and UN resolution 2216.

Michael Fabricant: Our immigration controls in Calais are governed by the treaty of Le Touquet, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Europe well knows. He will also know, and the House of Commons Library has said, that the treaty can be broken only if the British or the French choose to do so, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether we are members of the European Union. Will he ask whichever person who said it to stop talking this nonsense that if we leave the EU we are suddenly going to find a massive great refugee camp in the heart of Kent?

David Lidington: The Le Touquet treaty is certainly vital to this country’s border security. Of the 100,000 people who have been prevented from entering the UK in the past five years, roughly a quarter were stopped at Calais at the juxtaposed controls. We co-operate very closely with the French Government, but I fear my hon. Friend underestimates the extent of domestic French opposition to and protest against the juxtaposed controls. If we left the EU, the stock of good will towards Le Touquet and this country would be severely depleted.

Clive Betts: On the Foreign Office website, there is very clear advice to private companies thinking of doing business with illegal Israeli settlements. It states:
	“Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities…in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks”
	and
	“we do not encourage or offer support to such activity.”
	Do the Government give exactly the same advice to public bodies, including local councils, with regard to their procurement decisions?

Philip Hammond: Yes, we are clear with local authorities that they are bound by and must follow procurement rules, but we are clear that we do not support boycott movements. The Minister for the Cabinet Office was in Israel just last week and made that abundantly clear then.

Henry Smith: With the United States wishing to continue its military presence on Diego Garcia for a further 20 years, what discussions is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office planning to have with Washington about helping to facilitate the right of return of the Chagos islanders to the British Indian Ocean Territory?

James Duddridge: We have made it clear that we want the US presence to continue, but the Government have not yet held discussions with the US about continuing that arrangement. I very much welcomed discussing the issues with my hon. Friend a few weeks ago in connection with the all-party group visit to the Foreign Office. I will continue to liaise with him when the Government come to a conclusion, following the KPMG report and the consultation.

Margaret Ritchie: Following yesterday’s drop in the value of sterling, what other implications does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office anticipate for Britain and Northern Ireland as a result of the uncertainty around the referendum?

Philip Hammond: Uncertainty always has a cost to business. Business hates uncertainty, and the markets will reflect it. That is why it is right to hold the referendum at the earliest possible date—23 June—and settle this issue once and for all so that Britain can get on with Britain’s business.

Robert Jenrick: When I canvass the streets of Newark for the local elections, people ask me about the views of my local councillors on refuse collection or on potholes on Newark’s roads. I rarely hear them ask me their views on foreign policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that foreign policy is set by the Foreign Secretary and by the Government and should be debated in this House—not by our town halls—so we should all support the Government’s action against boycotts and sanctions?

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of my colleagues has just reminded me that my hon. Friend is not the only one who pounded the pavements of Newark. I think everyone on these Benches did so. Yes, foreign policy is, of course, a matter for the Government of the United Kingdom, and it is the business of this Parliament. It is very important that we have a single foreign policy, which is clearly projected so that Britain’s position in the world is understood and strengthened.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Demand always massively exceeds supply at Question Time, especially at Foreign Office questions. We do not really have time, but I am allowing time for one last question. I call Mr Richard Burden.

Richard Burden: May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)? Is there anything in World Trade Organisation or other rules that fetters a public institution’s ability to act on the advice that the FCO puts on its website, which my hon. Friend quoted?

Philip Hammond: Public bodies in this country are bound by the EU procurement directive in their purchasing activity and must follow those rules.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but at least we know that there is huge interest in what the Foreign Office does and says. We will have to leave it there for today.

Mental Health Taskforce

Luciana Berger: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the Government’s response to the final report of the independent Mental Health Taskforce.

Alistair Burt: Achieving parity of esteem for mental and physical health remains a priority for this Government. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s raising of the urgent question this afternoon. We welcomed the independent Mental Health Taskforce launched by NHS England last year, with its remit to explore the variation in the availability of mental health services across England, to look at the outcomes for people who are using services, and to identify key priorities for improvement.
	The taskforce, chaired by Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind—I thank him, the vice-chair, Jacqui Dyer, and the whole team for the remarkable work they did—also considered ways of promoting positive mental health and wellbeing, ways of improving the physical health of people with mental health problems, and whether we are spending money and time on the right things.
	The publication of the taskforce’s report earlier this month marked the first time a national strategy has been designed in partnership with all the health-related arm’s length bodies in order to deliver change across the system. This also demonstrated the remarkable way in which society, the NHS and this House now regard mental health and how it should be seen and approached.
	This Government have made great strides in the way we think about and treat mental health in this country. We have given the NHS more money than ever before and are introducing access and waiting-time targets for the first time. We have made it clear that local NHS services must follow our lead by increasing the amount they spend on mental health and making sure that beds are always available. Despite those improvements, however—and I referred earlier to the way in which we view these matters—the taskforce pulled no punches. It produced a frank assessment of the state of current mental health care throughout the NHS, pointing out that one in four people would experience a mental health problem during their lifetime, and that the cost of mental ill health to the economy, the NHS and society was £105 billion a year.
	We can all agree that the human and financial cost of inadequate care is unacceptable. The Department of Health therefore welcomes the report’s publication, and will work with NHS England and other partners to establish a plan for implementing its recommendations. To make those recommendations a reality, we will spend an extra £1 billion by 2020-21 to improve access to mental health services, so that people can receive the right care in the right place when they need it most. That will mean increasing the number of people completing talking therapies by nearly three quarters, from 468,000 to 800,000; more than doubling the number of pregnant women or new mothers receiving mental health support, from 12,000 to 42,000 a year; training about 1,700 new therapists; and helping 29,000 more people to find or stay in work through individual placement support and talking therapies.
	I assure all Members that they will have ample opportunities to ask questions and debate issues as we work together to implement the taskforce’s recommendations.

Luciana Berger: The final report of the Mental Health Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England, provides a frank assessment of the state of mental health care, and describes a system that is “ruining” some people’s lives. It contains a number of recommendations which, if implemented in full, could make a significant difference to services that have had to contend with funding cuts and staff shortages at a time of rising demand, leaving too many vulnerable people without the right care and support.
	It is extremely disappointing that the Opposition have had to compel the Minister to come to the Chamber today to ensure that Parliament can give the report and the Government’s response to it the attention and scrutiny that they deserve. It is all the more regrettable because the Prime Minister himself chose to announce their response to the media during last week’s recess—a courtesy which, had it not been for the urgent question, would still not have been afforded to the House. The Government’s apparent announcements included the announcement of a supposed “additional” £1 billion of investment by 2020, but a number of vital questions remain unanswered.
	Will the Minister explain why the report was delayed and published during the recess? Did Ministers or No. 10 have a say in the timing, and, if so, does the Minister accept that such a level of interference on the part of Ministers raises questions about the independence of the report? Can the Minister confirm that no additional money will be allocated from the Treasury to fund what the Government have announced, and that it will be funded from the £8 billion that has already been set aside for the NHS to receive by 2020? Given that mental health is given just under 10% of the total NHS budget, surely mental health services would have expected to receive much of that additional money as part of the NHS settlement anyway. Can the Minister explain how the money can be expected to deliver the “transformation” in our mental health services that the taskforce says is urgently required?
	Can the Minister also confirm that he is accepting all the recommendations relating to the NHS? Does he intend to respond to the other recommendations, and when can we expect that response? As the report makes clear, we do not solve the challenges of our nation’s mental health from the Department of Health.
	On behalf of the many thousands of people who have been let down by the Government, who are desperate to see a change in the way in which we approach mental health, and who are owed a full explanation from the Government of their response to this damning report, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions, which give me an opportunity to say still more about what we are doing in relation to mental health and how far it has come since 2010. For instance, she could have pointed out that 1,400 more people a day have access to mental health treatment than had access to it in that year, simply as a matter of comparison between what was done then and what is done now. However, it is absolutely right to make the essential point that there is more to be done—which is a view that we share—and that is what the report did.
	The timing of the report was not up to the Government. It is an independent report, commissioned by the NHS from an independent taskforce, and the timing and the content were decided by the taskforce. I had the occasional meeting with Paul Farmer about it. I made sure to speak to him to say, “This is absolutely your report. Forget the guff in the papers about who wants what in the report and all that; this is yours and it’s got to be yours”—and it is absolutely clear that it was. The decision to publish it was theirs. The Prime Minister was able to respond, which was great, and that emphasises again the importance given to this issue now as compared with times past.
	On the finance, the important thing to note is that the Prime Minister announced in January how the £600 million in the spending review, which is included in the NHS bottom line until 2021, would be spent. That included the new money for perinatal mental health, crisis care, psychiatric liaison in A&E and the crisis care community work. What was said by the Prime Minister in relation to the taskforce report represents new money that will be available for the NHS and mental health by 2021. That will be £1 billion extra by 2021 over what is spent at the moment, with the additional number of people to be treated that I outlined.
	I spoke to the taskforce after the issuing of the report. I do not particularly want just to produce a response to the taskforce report; I said that I would prefer a series of rolling responses, as it were, so that when we have responded to a recommendation and when we are moving on and delivering on it, I would say so. That will come in a variety of different forms, but will be related to what the taskforce has done. That may well involve announcements to Parliament, whether by written ministerial statements or other means. I did not want one big bang of a response, as it were, because the Prime Minister has already said that we will accept the recommendations as they go with the grain of what the Government were going to do anyway. I wanted to give an indication that the report will not just sit on a shelf, gathering dust. By making constant reference to it when we do something—saying, “This is a response to what the taskforce said we should be doing towards 2021”—it can get the stamp of support and recognition, which is important.
	On the hon. Lady’s claim that thousands have been let down, again I would gently remind her that this Government were the first Government to set waiting times for physical and mental health—a chance missed by the hon. Lady’s Government when they were in office and set physical health waiting time limits. It is this Government who have actually made the commitment of £10 billion extra to the NHS, a commitment never made by her or her party. It is very easy for people to talk about new things in mental health when they do not have a budget or an economic team producing anything of any credibility, but this Government have got the responsibilities and are doing the work.
	We are absolutely agreed that the state of mental health services cries out for more to be done; we have said that, and that is what we are doing. The direction of travel and the physical delivery is happening on a day-by-day basis. We will do more; we will continue to work together to do more, and I welcome the hon. Lady and her team’s very regular pressure on me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to continue to do more. We will meet that challenge—and we are meeting it in a way that no Government have ever met it before.

Liam Fox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the whole of the Government health team on their personal commitment to this issue. Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who suffer from mental health are often poor advocates of their own cause, and that it is very easy for money to be diverted into other areas of healthcare spending where others are able to shout louder for the money? Will he and his Front-Bench team consider whether it is possible to ring-fence inside the NHS budget this money for mental health care so that it does not become the Cinderella subject in the future that it has been too often in the past?

Alistair Burt: I thank my right hon. Friend for the question and his own personal interest and work in this area. He, like me, has come across this conundrum: we talk from the Dispatch Box about more money going into mental health and then we go to areas and they say, “Well, it’s not happening here.” That has been a genuine reality that we need to do something about. We are being more directive towards clinical commissioning groups and having a more transparent system of examining their finances. In addition, guidance from the NHS says that it expects the proportional increase in finance to the NHS to go appropriately to mental health services and we have now given specific commitments to the series of services announced by the Prime Minister and contained in these recommendations. In that way, we hope to make sure that the diversion of funds that has happened in the past will not happen in the future. Local areas will, thus, feel that they, too, must ensure that they have the share of the resource.

Philippa Whitford: All of us in the House welcome the strides made in changing the stigma around mental health, and people have been brave enough to speak out. In Scotland, we had the “See me” campaign, which was about seeing the person, not the condition.
	Despite all the great talk, the money has often not gone to the services. Mental health trusts suffered a 2% cut in their budget between 2013 and 2015, and the number of psychiatric nurses decreased by 1.4%. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) talked about money often ending up somewhere else, and we must avoid that. We need also to focus on children, because one in 10 of our children suffers from mental health problems between the ages of five and 16, and they are waiting a very long time to get help. We face the same challenge in Scotland. We measure it, we know how difficult it is to deal with and we have managed to improve things by increasing staff and funding, but we also have a long road to walk.
	One thing we are not doing enough of is thinking about the whole spread of mental health support out into the community and about the way people work: people having insecure jobs; and people struggling to keep a roof over their head. Later, we are going to debate welfare reforms, and mental health issues arise from that. Three times as many poor children will have a mental health issue as children who are in a stable and well-financed family. Are we not going to try to join up our decisions and look at our other policy areas, in terms of how people work, how people are supported and the mental health suffering that comes from that?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her usual well-informed contribution to the debate on these issues, and for what she says about stigma and the general approach the Government have been taking. She is absolutely right about that. We have supported the Time to Change anti-stigma campaign, which has had some success, although we have to do more.
	The hon. Lady is also right about children and wider cross-government work. On children and young people, for the first time we have a Minister in the Department for Education in England who has responsibilities for mental health, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) is here to demonstrate that we take those cross-government responsibilities very seriously. One way in which we are going to manage the response to the taskforce is by having a cross-governmental team to make sure that Departments are joined up. Housing has something to do with this, as does education, and work and pensions, as the hon. Lady said. We will make sure that that is done.
	I should have said in my remarks, but did not do so for reasons of time, that what has been said in the taskforce and what the Prime Minister has said is in addition to the £1.25 billion announced in March for the development of the child and adolescent mental health services in England and the £30 million a year eating disorder work, in order to recognise the increased pressures on children. As the hon. Lady rightly says, the more prevention work that can be done earlier, the better.

Sarah Wollaston: I remind the House that I am married to the registrar of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I join the Minister in thanking the independent mental health taskforce for the work it has done. Will he go further on how we are going to track, with greater transparency, this money to ensure it is spent in the right place, not just within health, but within social care? He will know that many of those who are suffering from mental health problems are cared for in the community, under social care, and it is therefore vital that we have parity of esteem across both health and social care.

Alistair Burt: Yes, I thank my hon. Friend for that and recognise the work of the royal college. Its president, Simon Wessely, was also much involved in the report, as was the college, so I thank them for that. It is very important to track this money. The CCG assessment framework will help us to do that through the health service. The money that the Prime Minister announced in relation to community crisis care—the extra £400 million announced in January—will be spent throughout the community, and it is essential that we track it.
	There has been a data lack; the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) knows about that well, because I answer far too many of her questions by saying, “This information is not collected” or, “This information is not collected centrally”. [Interruption.] I have noticed that. We are in the process of changing that situation; the dataset was in the process of being changed and more information will be available. In order to track things properly, we have to have the information available. The question is right and we are improving the data. It is important to track this, both in local authority work and in NHS work.

Mr Speaker: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will take it in the right spirit when I say that it is immensely encouraging that he notices his own answers.

Kevan Jones: Parity of esteem and extra resources are important, but one of the main messages from this report is that we need to hard-wire mental health and well-being into public policy. Twice as many people take their own lives as are killed on our roads each year. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for a national campaign to address this issue?

Alistair Burt: Yes, I do, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his work and interest in this area. Included in the taskforce’s recommendations is a national ambition to reduce by 10% the number of suicides—that would be a reduction of some 400 a year. Three areas are already piloting a “zero suicide ambition strategy”, and this probably needs to be given more prominence than it has been. A national suicide prevention strategy is in place, which I am reviewing to see how it can be better implemented locally, because not all local areas have a similar strategy. It is right that that gets extra prominence, and we had a debate on it not too long ago in Westminster Hall. We recognise that it is a significant issue for men in particular, because three times as many men as women take their own lives. The recent increase in the number of women doing so, which was noted just a few weeks ago, is also significant. It is important that we talk about this more, recognise that suicide is not inevitable, and have a national ambition to challenge it and do more. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will be able to champion that work, just as he has championed other things.

Andrew Murrison: It is a very sad fact that in healthcare those professionals who add the most to the service do not necessarily receive the same level of acclamation as those working in more glamorous specialties. What does the Minister think can be done to improve the status of those working in mental healthcare and thus mental healthcare as an attractive career option?

Alistair Burt: That is a good question. It is very important that true value is given to those who work in such an area, at all levels. When we have seen examples of poor-quality care and the tragedies that have occurred, we realise the value placed on those who display kindness as well as skill and demonstrate their qualifications. We need to talk about the quality of good care. We need to make sure that people who go into these professions have a career path, from whatever their entry level. We want to encourage greater psychiatric awareness in medical training and clinical medical training for those who are leaving medical schools. Again, I know that Simon Wessely of the royal college has done much work in this area. We should emphasise that those who care for those in the most distressed situations, be they in hospital, community or specialist services, deserve our thanks, encouragement and proper training. Increased money for training is included in the package that the Government will be working on, and it will be a vital part of that.

Diana R. Johnson: Two weeks ago, the Minister kindly came to Hull to talk to parents who are campaigning to get an in-patient facility for children and young people in the Hull area, as the previous one was closed several years ago. Will he update my constituents about any progress in the past two weeks and about whether any of the £1 billion allocated to mental health services will be used in Hull?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It was good to see her in Hull with her constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I do not think that any new money is specifically needed to deliver on the commitment to provide in-patient care for young people in Hull and the surrounding area. It seemed to me that people had already agreed on that; the problem was in the delivery of it. She will recall the frustration that I expressed when I was sitting round a table with representatives from the clinical commissioning group, the NHS and the trust, because for some reason it was impossible for us to reach a decision.
	The update is that I have already taken that matter away with me to consider how to resolve it, because I had some concern about it. A national decision has to be made about the allocation of finance and priorities, but there is a clear local need that needs to be addressed. We will make progress on that. On beds generally, we have more beds for young people than ever before, and 50 more since I came into my role, but they are not always in the right places, as we saw in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I do not think that anything in the announcement affects the importance of that matter, which has already been recognised.

Stewart Jackson: I warmly welcome the Government’s initiative and the taskforce report. I am slightly disappointed by the Opposition’s rather churlish tone, as I thought this was a cross-party matter.
	May I make two brief pleas to the Minister? First, we must not lose sight of acute mental health episodes among children and young people at weekends and out of hours, which is a long-standing issue, including in my constituency. Secondly, Tourette’s syndrome falls between the strategies and provision of education and health. One in 100 children are diagnosed with Tourette’s. It is an important neurological condition that we need to address. Will the Minister keep focused on that as part of his wider mental health review?

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. Attention is now being paid to crisis care in A&E, which recognises the fact that people who need urgent treatment will go to A&E. The Government are determined to ensure that there is emergency access 24/7 by placing more psychiatric liaison teams in hospitals and by improving crisis care in the community. My hon. Friend is right to recognise the problem. A number of syndromes and issues have particular qualities associated with them that need individual care, and he is right to raise his concerns about those who suffer from Tourette’s.

Joan Ryan: The taskforce emphasises the importance of supported housing for people with mental health problems. I think it is right to say that the Minister’s Department made no representations to the Treasury before the changes to housing benefit for tenants in supported housing were announced. It had made no official representations to other Departments as recently as three weeks ago. Will the Minister now make the case to his colleagues in the Departments for Communities and Local Government and for Work and Pensions on the need to exempt vulnerable people from the changes in housing benefit?

Alistair Burt: I understand the right hon. Lady’s point. I know that such issues are being considered extremely carefully by those who are responsible for developing the policy, but I will ensure that her further concerns are noted and that the Departments recognise them.

Helen Whately: There is so much good stuff in this report that I must congratulate the authors on their work and my right hon. Friend the Minister on his interest. I particularly welcome the recognition in the report of the gap in the provision of psychiatric liaison services, and the commitment to have such services at the core 24/7 level in at least half of all hospitals by 2020. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on whether such provision is fully funded? Given the difficulties of getting such services in place at the moment, will he take a close interest in the plan to make it happen in practice?

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this subject, which she had expressed to me previously, and her work on it. Yes, our determination is that the extra £1 billion a year that will be spent on mental health services will cover the training and the commitment that we have made to 24/7 cover. It is very important that such cover is there. The issue was identified when the Care Quality Commission looked at the work of the mental health crisis care concordat, which has been so successful in its first 12 or 18 months. I can assure her that I am determined to ensure that we provide these facilities.

Alistair Carmichael: The report adds to the consensus that arose from Lord Crisp’s commission and the cross-party work led by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on ending the practice of out-of-area treatments. Will the Minister commit to putting a timetable on that process so that we might know when it will happen?

Alistair Burt: The taskforce recommendation is that out-of-area placements should be eliminated by 2020; Lord Crisp’s report said 2017. I would like to see it done as soon as is reasonably practicable. We want to ensure that, where possible, people can be treated locally, as it makes a real difference. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) mentioned one or two cases of young people being treated some way away, and the impact that it has had on them. They lose local community links and the community work that can be done to assist them. We all want to see that ended, and I want it to be done as soon as possible. It will certainly be done within the taskforce’s recommended timescale. If it can be done any quicker locally, area by area, I will be very happy.

Mike Wood: I welcome the Government’s positive response to the taskforce report. Although effective acute care is vital, prevention is better than cure. Will the Government look at ongoing training for all GPs in mental health so that all patients can have access to early diagnosis, care and treatment to prevent problems from escalating?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. GPs are often contacted first when a problem is developing, as I know from my contacts with the British Medical Association and with the Royal College of General Practitioners, which was also very interested in the taskforce report. Those organisations want to ensure that doctors have enough training, because training levels tend to vary according to interest. I know that all GPs are concerned about the matter and want to ensure that they have the skills. Equally, they need to know that they can then refer to the right place. That is what the increased support for both emergency and community services is all about. It is to ensure that there are proper pathways so that people do not get stuck at any particular stage.

Helen Hayes: My 15-year-old constituent Matthew Garnett, who has autism, has spent the past six months in a psychiatric intensive care unit 30 miles from home. The unit does not have the specialism to meet Matthew’s needs and he has deteriorated significantly. The specialist bed that Matthew needs is in Northampton, where Matthew’s family have been told there are five young people who are ready for discharge but whose ongoing care cannot be arranged. Clearly, there is a crisis in mental healthcare for children and adolescents. When will the Minister bring a plan to the House to address that, and will he intervene to secure the bed that Matthew Garnett so desperately needs?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. If she wants to make a particular approach on that case, I am ready to listen.

Helen Hayes: I have already done that.

Alistair Burt: It is already in the works. Okay, thank you. Let me say a couple of things with regard to specialist care. First, even though we want most young people to have access to care close to home, there will always be some specialist care that will require out-of-area treatment—perhaps those are the circumstances to which the hon. Lady is referring. It is then a question of getting the place.
	That issue emphasises why it is so important to have the community care available. We need to be able to discharge patients and put in place a proper care package. That is precisely what the taskforce considered and made recommendations on. That work is already ongoing. As my time in office has shown me, there are variations in practice in different places. Discharges are handled better in some areas than in others. The practice of the best must become the practice for all. Everything must be done to ensure that people are treated in the appropriate place at the appropriate time, and keeping people in hospital unnecessarily is not what anyone wants. That work is already going on, and I will make sure that the hon. Lady gets an answer to her particular question.

Stephen McPartland: I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to this issue and the Government’s investment in this area, which the importance of mental health issues alongside physical health in the NHS. Will the Minister clarify how he will hold the NHS to account so that the money is spent on additional mental health services as opposed to just being frittered away?

Alistair Burt: The engagement of the NHS with the taskforce needs to be recognised and emphasised. The NHS set up the taskforce because it wanted to be clear about the state of mental health services and take a five-year forward view. That is what the taskforce does, but it goes beyond that to say that it has a 10-year vision, which I welcome. Not everything can be done in neat, parliamentary-cycle chunks, so it is important that people have a continuing sense of commitment. The certainty that my hon. Friend wants is demonstrated by the involvement of the NHS, the endorsement of the recommendation by the chief executive, and the work on transparency, which is important to us, to make sure that we can all see where money has been spent. That should hold clinical commissioning groups and the NHS to account on the expenditure issue.

Rachael Maskell: Paul Farmer’s report highlights the fact that 50% of diagnoses of mental health challenges are made by the age of 14, and 75% are made by the age of 24. He also says in the report:
	“Yet most children and young people get no support.”
	Will the Minister explain what specific work will be undertaken to look at prevention and early intervention, including early diagnosis?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her interest and her considerable knowledge of these issues, which she has raised a number of times.
	There are two things to say. First, on expenditure on children and young people’s mental health services, £1.25 billion will be spent over the next five years to improve the baseline for child and adolescent mental health services, including early prevention. I would also mention the full roll-out of IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—services for children by 2018. That is already in place for, I think, 70% of the country, and it will be completed by 2018. It is a way of ensuring that children have early access to the psychological therapies that they need. That is an important development, which I hope the hon. Lady welcomes.

James Morris: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, I very much welcome the report, as Members in all parts of the House should. There is a high-quality public debate about mental health, in which we are addressing stigma, and the Prime Minister has made two speeches in the past three weeks about mental health setting out the Government’s priorities. Does the Minister agree that there is a unique opportunity for him and the Government to drive forward real, quality change in mental health?

Alistair Burt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done as chair of the all-party group, and indeed to all colleagues in the House who have raised these issues over a period of time and, partly as a result of their personal experiences and their bravery in talking about them, have helped in the process in which we are engaged.
	Yes, we have a great opportunity. The taskforce has set out a 10-year vision, and there is a commitment from the NHS. At the top level, in all parts of the House, there is a commitment to the issue, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to develop the services that people want and for which, in all honesty, they have waited too long.

Tom Elliott: I welcome the taskforce report and the Government’s response. The Minister indicated that £1 billion would be made available by 2021. What is the relationship between that and the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and are there any Barnett consequentials?

Alistair Burt: Although I read the answers to my own questions, I cannot recall one on that point, so the hon. Gentleman has caught me out. I genuinely do not know the answer, so I will write to him about the devolved Administrations or place an answer in the Library. I think we are talking about responsibility in England, because this is a devolved matter, but there is good, close co-operation between officials on the development of mental health services in the devolved Administrations, which will certainly continue. I will make sure that an answer on the finances is placed in the Library.

Alec Shelbrooke: The work that the Minister has outlined is, to my mind, one of the most important pieces of work in this Parliament, and I very much welcome the investment and improved services that have resulted.
	May I build on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) about the stigma of mental health? Depression is one of the most terrible diseases that people can suffer, and they often suffer because of the stigma attached to it, too. I congratulate the writers of “Coronation Street” on the Steve McDonald storyline, which was dealt with sensitively and addressed some of the stigmas and stereotypes. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that as much effort is put into tackling the stigma of mental health as into the practical investment in services.

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I praise the storyline editors of “Coronation Street” just as much as I do those of “EastEnders”, which has done a remarkable job in relation to perinatal mental health with Stacey’s story over the past few weeks.
	The Government’s anti-stigma campaign will certainly continue. We are much informed particularly by young people, with whom we have worked on Time to Change, to which we have made a further commitment of financial support. Stigma is a terrible thing, and is partly responsible for breaking the link between physical and mental health. The taskforce recommended that the Government deliver on the objective to make sure that more people with mental health problems receive help for their physical issues, so that we can deal with the terrible difference in mortality rates between those with mental health difficulties and other people. Dealing with the stigma, so that people feel able to raise their problems, is an important part of that.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I acknowledge the work of the taskforce and its report.
	I encourage the Minister, along with his colleagues in the Department for Education, to take a particular interest in the mental health in schools training programme, which has been developed by practitioners to ensure that schools are better equipped to support the mental health and wellbeing of pupils. Will they help to safeguard those interests in a system that is designed to be run in a similar way to the child protection system, with which schools are familiar?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in these issues. He is absolutely right: in England, a pilot project with 27 schools is being run by the Department for Education to locate and identify a single point of contact in those schools on mental health issues for young people. Depending on the results, more projects can be rolled out. Early identification and support in school are absolutely essential, and that work is under way.
	There are a number of different initiatives, sometimes inspired by people who have experienced personal tragedy in their own family. They realise that the tragedy that has befallen their young person might not have happened if their friends had been more aware of their circumstances, or if the school or college had been more aware. We look at all those different initiatives to see how best practice can be spread, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue.

Jeremy Lefroy: I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their commitment on this. He has just spoken about best practice. Last month in Stafford we held a round table on mental health. One of the issues that came up was that there were a lot of good local initiatives, both in the public and the non-governmental organisation sector, but sometimes they did not know about each other. Will he point us to best practice in the sector?

Alistair Burt: I am happy to do so, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. As I indicated earlier, something that has perplexed me since I have been in this role is the variation in practice in different places. It has never been easier to transfer information by electronic means and make people aware of best practice, but it is still difficult to move things around. We need to make sure that there is a website—a clearing house—for ideas in such areas.

Luciana Berger: It already exists in the Positive Practice collaborative.

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. We need to make sure that we have proper ways to access all the different ideas. A lot of work has gone into this, and we need to make sure that it is easy to access different ideas. There is a lot going on, and a lot can be done in relation to spreading best practice.

Mr Speaker: I gently remind the House that exchanges in the Chamber are not a private conversation. It is quite important, from the vantage point of those who take a full and complete record of our proceedings, that they can hear what is said.

Chris Bryant: Sorry?

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that helpful interjection from a sedentary position.

Conor McGinn: The Minister welcomed the work of the taskforce and its comprehensive report. I agree entirely. He said that he would seek to implement the measures in a rolling programme, but can we infer from that that he is committed to implementing all the measures and that he fully accepts all the recommendations?

Alistair Burt: Yes, we have indicated that we accept all the recommendations by the taskforce. I would like to roll out responses to them over a period of time so that they are regularly brought back to the House. Our commitment to expenditure, training and dealing with the recommendations is clear.
	Mr Speaker, you would not want to hear all the private conversations that go on on the Floor of the House, nor would those who report our proceedings, but I see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) so often at events such as this that it is not unnatural that we have the odd exchange over the Dispatch Box.

Lisa Cameron: I declare an interest as a registered clinical psychologist. I thank the Minister for his commitment and the taskforce for its informative report. In considering mental health across the lifespan, the report highlights the fact that 40% of people living in care homes are affected by depression, which contributes to morbidity. Alongside medical and social care, will the Minister commit to funding older adult specialists in psychological treatment, to address the growing mental health needs of our population?

Alistair Burt: I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this area, for her commitment to this area since she has been in the House, and for being at the National Autistic Society event last night, where she again demonstrated that interest. May I look at the suggestion that she makes? It is well recognised that with the growing incidence of dementia and other issues, and with those in care homes being increasingly frail, there will of course be a need for further specialised work. May I look at that area in particular and come back to her in due course?

Short Money

Chris Bryant: (Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on the Government consultation on Short money.

John Penrose: I am happy to confirm that since we last discussed this topic on the day the House rose for recess, we have completed the steps I promised at the time. On Friday 12 February I tabled the statutory instrument required to change the allocations of policy development grants to fund political parties, in line with the recommended changes put forward by the independent Electoral Commission. Last Thursday the Deputy Leader of the House and I tabled a request for views about potential similar changes to Short money. I hope the House will therefore appreciate why I am responding to this urgent question.
	The parallels between policy development grants and Short money—both forms of taxpayer funding for political parties—are strong and, since Short money is larger and more valuable than policy development grants, it seems sensible to take a similar approach. The request for views asks some important questions. For example, the cost of Short money has gone up by 50% since 2010, and will rise by a whopping 68% by the end of this Parliament if nothing is done. At a time when everybody else outside Westminster has had to tighten their belts, why should politicians expect to be treated differently, feathering their own nests at taxpayers’ expense?
	The rises in Short money are linked to the retail prices index inflation every year, but benefits claimants get rises linked to the lower consumer prices index inflation each year, so how can any politician look their constituent in the eye and say that they deserve a bigger rise every year than someone who is looking for a job or is on a pension or living with a disability?
	The rises in Short money are also linked to the number of votes cast at elections. That has contributed this year to an enormous 30% increase, from £7.25 million in 2014-15 to almost £9.5 million this year. How can that be justified when many vital public services are having to cope with cuts of 19%? Short money is notably untransparent. It is taxpayers’ money after all, but there is no requirement to publish details of how it is spent. There are, rightly, requirements, on the parallel policy development grants and on pretty much every other area of Government funding, too. How can it be right in the modern age for politicians to expect to be bunged a load of hard-earned taxpayers’ cash—more than £35 million in total since 2010 for the Labour party, for example—without at least explaining how it gets spent?
	Finally, the distribution of Short money between parties throws up some pretty odd results. For example, UKIP gets £688,000 for its one MP, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) has, in an impressively principled stand, turned some of that down. The Greens, also with one MP, get less than a third of that. Clearly, it makes sense to ask whether that can be improved.
	These important questions need to be answered. The request for views runs until 7 March so there is plenty of time for everyone on all sides of the House to submit their views and opinions, and there will be plenty of time for us to debate these issues here or in Westminster Hall if anyone wants to do so. We are already off to a flying start with this second urgent question, and I will take contributions from everybody here today in the spirit of constructive submissions and suggestions in answer to the questions that the request for views has raised.

Chris Bryant: That is all very well, but Short money has nothing to do with the Cabinet Office. It is House business, not Government business. The whole point is that it enables Parliament to do its business properly. The accounting officer is not the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office, but the Clerk of the House. The Leader of the House should be here doing his job properly and answering questions.
	Can this Minister confirm that any changes will have to be debated, and voted on, on the Floor of the House? Can he confirm that because this is House business, it will not be subject to a Government Whip? This is the shoddiest so-called consultation I have ever come across. It deliberately forgets to mention that Short money is linked to how many seats and how many votes all the Opposition parties got at a general election, so the main reason that Short money has increased in 2015 is that this Government have a much smaller majority than the Labour Government or the coalition Government, and the Opposition parties got more seats and more votes than in previous Parliaments.
	Can the Minister confirm that, contrary to what he says, this is not a 19% cut? With inflation, it is a 24% cut. How can that be right when the Chancellor has increased the cost of his political office to the taxpayer by 204%? Or is there one rule for the Opposition and quite another for the Government?
	The Minister said last time that the cost and number of taxpayer-funded Tory special advisers—the only bit of this that he is responsible for—is coming down, but that is not true either, is it? Since the general election that figure has gone up, so will the Government be taking a 19% cut on 1 April? No, I do not suppose they will.
	The consultation, published in the half-term recess—the Minister should be ashamed of himself—allows just 11 working days for responses, and then seems to intend to implement a decision less than three weeks later. Will that give the two Conservative-chaired Select Committees that have expressed an interest in doing inquiries time to complete those inquiries? I do not suppose it will. That is another affront to this House.
	Fair-minded people will conclude that the Government are developing a nasty authoritarian streak, and that an overweening Executive wants to crush all opposition because they are afraid of scrutiny. When we were in government we trebled Short money and the Tories did not hesitate to bank £46 million, so we will not take any lessons from the Minister. When I was Deputy Leader of the House in 2009, some people suggested that we should cut Short money for the Conservative party because other Departments in Government were facing significant cuts. We said, “No, democracy is worth protecting.” This is not a consultation on cutting the cost of politics—we would welcome that. It is a pernicious ultimatum and the Government should withdraw it unless they are prepared to put Spads on the table as well. To quote the Minister, why should the Government be treated any differently from the Opposition? Feathering their own nest—that is what they are doing.

John Penrose: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the cost of Spads, as I mentioned when we last met to discuss this, has fallen since the general election. The request for views is entirely clear about the various different causes of the rise in Short money, and the consultation asks for views and expressions of how it might be amended point by point, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about how the request for views is done.
	Even if no changes are made to some of the proposals in the request for views, the Labour party will still receive more funding in real terms than did the Conservative party in 2009-10. It will receive an estimated £11 million of taxpayers’ money over this Parliament. There will be no real reduction in cash terms; in fact, there will be a small increase in cash terms, even after a 19% cut, compared with 2014-15. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

John Penrose: I was hoping for a more constructive response. I was hoping for a more balanced response. I was hoping for a set of proposals I could use as a response to the request for views. I am afraid that that is not what we have had, and I deeply regret that. I hope there is still time for us to move forward in a more constructive fashion.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for launching a consultation, which, I have to confess, seemed to be lacking earlier in the process, so that is obviously a step forward. It is legitimate to ask whether it costs more or less to run an Opposition depending on how big the Government’s majority is. The official Opposition have a function that should be carried out regardless of the number of seats they have. I assure my hon. Friend that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will continue to take an interest in this matter, although I hope it can be resolved rather more consensually than today’s exchanges.

John Penrose: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and particularly for his final point about trying to resolve these issues more consensually. I look forward to any conclusions his Committee arrives at. I completely agree that it must make sense at least to ask, and to request views about, what the proper cost of running an Opposition—the official Opposition or, indeed, some of the other Opposition parties—should be. That does not necessarily vary depending on the number of votes cast at an election, which is something the current system requires, for example.

Patrick Grady: I declare an interest as the national secretary of the Scottish National party. It is a good thing that a consultation is taking place, but why limit it just to political parties? Why not extend it to the public and other stakeholders who might have an interest? There is nothing wrong in principle with reducing the cost of politics, so can we get some assurances on reducing the number and cost of special advisers and, indeed, of Members of the House of Lords? Given the proximity of the end of the financial year, when will the Government be in a position to confirm to the parties and the staff they employ what the settlement will be?

John Penrose: Obviously, the conclusions of the request for views will depend on what views are expressed, and I do not want to prejudge that. We will, however, want to move promptly and swiftly to make sure that any staff who might be affected by any changes that are announced have the maximum time for planning and that there is certainty as soon as there can be.

John Glen: I regard Short money as a critical part of our democracy, but given the realistic comparison with special advisers, and the steps the Government have taken to have transparency in the publication of senior special advisers’ salaries, does the Minister not think it is appropriate for the Opposition to have greater transparency in the salaries of their senior appointed researchers?

John Penrose: My hon. Friend, who was involved with administering Short money and policy development grants before he came into the House, knows whereof he speaks. He is right that it is essential that we demand the same transparency for taxpayers’ money in all areas. That should include not just the cost of Spads, which is already transparent, but, equally, policy development grants and Short money.

Tom Brake: I have no problem at all with the transparency that has just been asked for. The Minister is a decent man, but I think he has been tasked with doing someone else’s dirty business. What he is proposing is not actually about the cost of politics; if it were, he would also propose a cut in the budget for special advisers. This is actually about gagging the Opposition. Will he scrap this rushed consultation, abandon the attack on the scrutiny of the Government and look again at how the cost of politics can be reduced by, for instance, chopping the budget for special advisers?

John Penrose: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about me, and as a member of the Whips Office with him in the last Government, I reciprocate, of course. He is right that there are other ways of cutting the cost of politics. For example, we have in front of us proposals to reduce the total number of MPs in this House. I would not, therefore, want to limit what we plan to do just to Short money, but we should not let that be the enemy of doing the right thing on this issue either. Therefore, it is essential that we proceed with these proposals, and I hope we can rely on the right hon. Gentleman’s support.

Andrew Tyrie: Having had a hand in the creation of the policy development grant, and having argued vigorously for Short money increases when the Conservative party was in opposition, I will have to look carefully before arguing for anything other than that this decision to make such a substantial cut needs to be reconsidered. It certainly seems unacceptable that it is being introduced in one year. Everybody understands the need for financial stringency, and for this House to takes its share of reductions, but could the Minister at least look at whether this reduction can be phased? Could he also carefully examine the point that has been made about special advisers, whose numbers have grown enormously? The Labour Government bequeathed about 80, and the coalition Government got up to about 110, although the number has been reduced a little recently. Still, those numbers are very large. Those people do provide a lot of political assistance to the Government, and there is—although not a symmetry—a relationship between the two numbers. Looking at Short money in isolation would be a mistake.

John Penrose: May I start by reassuring my right hon. Friend that we are talking not about a cut, but about a slower rise? The cost of Short money has already risen by 50% since 2010, which is a significant amount. We are talking about reducing the rise, which, if nothing were done, would continue to ratchet up between now and the end of the Parliament. I would also say to him that the total salary bill for Spads is still lower than the total cost of Government funding from policy development grants, Short money and other sources. Therefore, while I agree that the two things are not directly comparable, there is some symmetry. I hope he is reassured by the fact that the Spad salary bill is much lower overall than the bill for the total funding of Opposition parties.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister clarify his thinking on policy development grants and how it ties in with the views of the Electoral Commission?

John Penrose: The House will be aware that the independent Electoral Commission has undertaken a fairly careful consultation over some time and has made some recommendations. The statutory instrument I mentioned in my initial remarks implements some of those, but not all as yet. We are holding off on deciding how we proceed with the remainder of the recommendations until we have the results of the expression of views. Given the obvious parallels between Short money and policy development grant, we thought it was sensible to make sure we had one set of answers before we proceeded with the other recommendations.

Suella Fernandes: The cost of Short money has increased by 68% cumulatively since 2010. Is that really justifiable at a time when councils of all colours are making very large efficiency savings? Surely, taxpayer-funded political parties can do the same.

John Penrose: I could not agree more. People outside this place—outside the Westminster bubble—who are looking at our discussions today will not understand why politicians feel that they should treat themselves separately and as a special case. Those people will look at what has happened to their budgets over the last five or six years and say, “What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the political gander as well.”

Hywel Williams: Setting aside for a moment the outrageous detail of the request for views, will the Minister tell the House what effect a cut in Short money would have on scrutiny and on the comfort, or discomfort, the Executive feel as they go about their business?

John Penrose: As I mentioned, the amount of Short money has gone up by 50% since 2010, so Opposition parties have a great deal more money with which to do their job than they did before. I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the comment made when we last considered this issue, about 10 days ago, by the hon. Member for Clacton, who pointed out that the costs of research and many other political functions are now potentially lower. Given what is being asked of many Departments and local authorities, it is certainly reasonable to ask people to work more efficiently in future.

Tom Pursglove: I think the public will be astonished that full accounts do not have to be published in this age of transparency. How is the Minister going to put that right?

John Penrose: I devoutly hope that the result of this process will be an increase in transparency. We already have improved transparency in pretty much every other area of taxpayer-funded spending, and we already have transparency that is far better than that for Short money on policy development grants—a very similar kind of grant. It would therefore be increasingly out of step with the modern world for us to assume that Short money should somehow be magically exempt.

Alasdair McDonnell: I would challenge the Minister, because I do not see this money as being for politicians; it is for our staff and our support teams. It is essential that we have those staff and support teams so that we deliver, and deliver well, for our constituents and the people we serve. Transparency is not an issue. None of us in this House, as far as I am aware, will dispute the need for transparency, and any moves towards transparency would be broadly supported. However, the problem is that my arithmetic seems to have gone awry. My figures tell me that in 2010 the Chancellor employed four special advisers, at a total cost of £230,000, and today he employs 10 special advisers at a total cost of £700,000. That is a 204% increase, according to my arithmetic; perhaps I am wrong. How can the Minister defend a 24% cut to those of us who are trying to make things work and a 204% rise for those in the Chancellor’s office? The Chancellor’s Spad team now costs more than the total cost of policy development grant given to all of us on these Benches—DUP, Plaid Cymru, SNP and SDLP Members. The Chancellor gets more than we get.

John Penrose: As I said, the cost of special advisers has fallen since the last general election. I would just point out that Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, had more Spads than the current Chancellor, and that the average salary of a special adviser is currently £2,000 less than it was under Gordon Brown’s Government in 2009.

Edward Argar: Short money, quite rightly, exists to enable Opposition parties to undertake scrutiny and parliamentary duties. Many of my constituents will therefore find it hard to understand the funding received by Sinn Féin when its Members neither attend this House nor participate in its activities. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at this anomaly?

John Penrose: For a long time, the funding received by Sinn Féin has been treated as a separate but parallel consideration subject to a separate resolution of this House. I would expect that to continue and for it to receive separate, special consideration as a result.

Douglas Carswell: I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will be cutting Short money, and I urge Ministers to stick to their guns and not to retreat. The sight of special pleading from political parties wanting to get their hands on taxpayers’ cash is disgraceful. I urge Ministers not only to slash Short money but to insist that all political parties publish fully audited accounts of what they spend it on, as my party will at the end of this year, so that we can see the hotel bills and precisely what they spend that taxpayers’ money on.

John Penrose: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a timeworn phrase but it bears repetition: sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Kevin Foster: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is vital that the Government secure value for money. Given that the purpose of Short money is to provide a credible Opposition, does he agree that the display that we have seen so far, with the announcement of policies such as nuclear submarines without nuclear missiles, shows that much of it has been completely squandered?

John Penrose: I hesitate to follow my hon. Friend down such a path, but if the purpose of Short money is to provide a credible Opposition and it has gone up by 50% since 2010, perhaps we now have an incredible Opposition instead.

David Winnick: Since, with the one exception that we have just heard, there is such strong feeling among those on the Opposition Benches that the Government are intending to undermine the work of the Opposition, would it not be sensible to do what was done originally when Short money was introduced—namely, to have constructive talks with the Opposition, with no ultimatum in the beginning, in order to reach a fair settlement?

John Penrose: I had rather hoped that the request for views would elicit a strong and perhaps constructive response. I am afraid that has not been visible so far, but none the less I hope that that may change between now and the end of the period of the request for views. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that because we are facing a deficit, time is pressing and we have less fiscal slack to play with.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Short money reforms mean that Labour has to name and give the salaries of its special advisers, particularly those who write the Leader of the Opposition’s speeches, because although I do not know their remuneration, I think they are hugely overpaid?

John Penrose: Given the level of transparency that is already rightly expected of the Government when employing Spads, for example, it is reasonable to ask for an equivalent level of transparency with regard to how Short money is spent on people such as Damian McBride, who I understand has just rejoined the Labour party’s payroll, and Seumas Milne.

Justin Madders: The Minister talks a lot about savings to the taxpayer, but can he confirm that any savings that will be made by these proposals will in fact be dwarfed by the extra cost to the public purse as a result of the Prime Minister’s prolific rate of appointments to the other place?

John Penrose: Actually, the cost of the House of Lords, I am told, is falling even while its numbers are rising, and so the cost to the public purse will be reduced as a result of the changes that are happening at the other end of the building.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about whether saving this amount of money is worthwhile, I would say, at the risk of angering my colleagues from Scotland, that mony a mickle maks a muckle. It matters what we save and it matters that we pay attention to every single detail, given the scale of the deficit that we inherited from the previous Labour Government.

Mark Spencer: I hope the Minister will recognise that there appears to be consensus in the House on transparency. Would it be fair enough, given that the Government have reduced their travel costs during their time in office, that the Opposition should publicise their travel costs and claims for special advisers running up and down the country?

John Penrose: That is an intriguing proposal, and I thank my hon. Friend very much for it. I will take it as a constructive suggestion for the request for views.

Julie Elliott: Given the increase in costs of Spads since 2009 by some 56%, the proposed cut in Short money of 24% over four years is disgraceful. Is the Minister not ashamed of his Government’s attack on democracy and scrutiny in this House?

John Penrose: We have already covered these points. Short money has already gone up by 50%, and it has gone up by 30% in the past year. I think that people listening to these exchanges will be asking themselves how much it costs to run an Opposition and why politicians feel they are so much more deserving of cash than, for example, benefits claimants whose money has not risen at anything like the same speed.

Matthew Offord: Given the public’s perception of the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps we should just take the Opposition’s money away completely.

John Penrose: I will take that as a suggestion and a proposal. I suspect that the weight of views across the House may probably be rather against it and that people do feel that there is a place for Short money, if it is properly reformed, in the same way that there is a place for the policy development grant, in order to make sure that an effective Opposition, properly, not excessively, funded, can function.

Margaret Ritchie: Again, I ask this question: with the cost of Government Spads rising, will the Minister concede that a disgraceful 24% cut to the Opposition parties’ funds is a case of double standards and an impediment to the Opposition parties’ scrutiny of the Executive?

John Penrose: I am afraid that I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, if only because, as I said, the cost of Spads has fallen since the general election and will still remain lower than the total funding for Opposition parties.

Christopher Pincher: Spending of Short money is unnecessarily opaque, so in his consultation, will my hon. Friend seek representations from senior, and numerate, Opposition Members such as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) as to whether they think that the taxpayer, and indeed their own party, gets value for money from the likes of Seumas Milne?

John Penrose: I will take submissions from any Member on either side of the House on what would involve good value for money. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the questions of what represents value for money, how much it costs to run an Opposition office and whether we can make sure it is done as efficiently as possible with taxpayers’ cash.

Helen Goodman: The fact is that the number of special advisers has gone up to 96 and the Prime Minister has appointed a record 236 peers to the other place. Meanwhile, the Government have introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 and are attempting to gag the trade unions and cut the Short money. That shows that the Government are not interested in cutting the cost of politics. It is absolutely clear that they want to silence any opposition in this country.

John Penrose: I am afraid that I do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. We are proposing to cut the number of MPs in this place—which is not an easy thing to do—so we are very serious about cutting the cost of politics. I therefore hope that, in that spirit, people will contribute constructively to the request for views.

Paul Maynard: Does the Minister agree that my constituents at least have the right to as much transparency as possible on how Short money is being spent? For all they know, it could be being used by hon. Members to help them write their books.

John Penrose: I am sure that none of the Opposition parties would spend taxpayers’ money in such a disrespectful fashion, but they will, of course, have nothing to hide, so I am sure that nobody will be at all concerned about proposals for increased transparency.

Paula Sherriff: Will the Minister confirm that this will have to be done by a resolution of the whole House? Does he have a date in mind for such a resolution?

John Penrose: The usual parliamentary process will be followed, so there will have to be a proposal. The statutory instrument for positive development grants has already been laid, and that can be either passed or prayed against in the usual way. The hon. Lady is right to say that, when we come up with proposals for Short money, they will have to be passed by a resolution of this House.

Jake Berry: Will the Minister confirm that during the consultation he will specifically look at protecting and supporting the interests of minority parties? They have a hugely important role to play in this Parliament, especially when we have such a divided and weak official Opposition.

John Penrose: I gave in my initial remarks an illustration of some of the peculiarities of the distribution of Short money. I gave comparisons between the money received by UKIP and the Greens, but there are other examples. Many Members of smaller Opposition parties will be able to quote examples of why they feel they are being either under or over-remunerated, depending on who they are. Therefore, it is certainly sensible for us to ask how that can be improved and whether the basis of allocation can be made better.

Andrew Gwynne: “Cutting the cost of politics,” the Minister says, meaning cutting the number of elected MPs while stuffing the other place full of his mates, and cutting support to Opposition parties while greatly increasing the number of Government special advisers. If he wants to cut the cost of politics, why has the Conservative party claimed £1.27 million in policy develop grants since 2010?

John Penrose: The allocations of money as per policy development grants are based on recommendations by the independent Electoral Commission, not on Government proposals. I would also point out that we are practicing what we preach, because in previous years the allocation of policy development grants to the Conservative party has been scaled back. We have handed some of that money back, for precisely the reasons that I described earlier about wanting to cut the cost of politics.

Robert Jenrick: With a national debt of £1.5 trillion, or £24,000 per every man, woman and child in this country, and some Government Departments making heroic efforts to cut back-office functions—the Ministry of Justice is cutting 50% of its back-office functions—what possible signal does it send out to the country and to the civil servants doing those jobs when they see some political parties refusing even to engage with sensible reforms of their own funding?

John Penrose: I could not agree more. The general public will not understand why politicians feel that we should be a special case. They will look at and listen to this debate and ask, “Why should these guys think they are in any way deserving of better treatment than people who are on benefits and struggling with their budget? Why should they get a special deal?”

Diana R. Johnson: I do not think that the general public will understand why the Cabinet Office has 50 press and communications officers or why the Ministry of Justice has 42 external communication officers. Should not the Government start to tighten their own belt and cut their own cloth first?

John Penrose: The Government are putting their own house in order. We made dramatic savings in the public sector over the course of the last Parliament and we are continuing to make further savings, including of 19% in unprotected Departments, across the whole of Government in this Parliament, so I respectfully reject the hon. Lady’s starting assumption.

Conor McGinn: In the last Parliament, I was an adviser to the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), along with one other part-time member of staff. By contrast, the Government Ministers had four special advisers, a series of private offices and hundreds of press officers and policy advisers. There is no equivalence. Will the Minister accept that Short money is not profligate, but the minimum required for opposition in a healthy parliamentary democracy?

John Penrose: If it is the minimum required for sensible opposition, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why it is so much higher now than it was five years ago in real terms, and why it will be higher than it was in 2014-15. If the costs of running an Opposition are consistent—they may even be lower than they used to be—the current levels of Short money, having risen so far, must be over-budget and something where savings can be made.

Crossrail: Elizabeth Line

Claire Perry: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House.
	I am delighted to announce that from December 2018 the Crossrail route will be known as the Elizabeth line and will be marked on the nation’s transport maps in royal purple.
	Today Her Majesty took part in a naming ceremony at the line’s new Bond Street station, where she met just some of those responsible for delivering Europe’s most complicated engineering project, which is now more than 70% complete and running on budget and on time.
	Her Majesty has served our country for more than 60 years. She has been a symbol of wisdom, continuity and stability in an age of unprecedented change, and she has long been associated with many aspects of this nation’s transport. Our Queen opened the Victoria line service in 1969. The Fleet line was renamed the Jubilee line in honour of her first 25 years on the throne in 1979, and she is the first reigning monarch to travel on the London underground. More recently, Her Majesty opened the redeveloped Reading and Birmingham New Street stations and Heathrow airport’s new terminal 2 building. I am told that trains are Her Majesty’s favourite form of travel and that she is a frequent user of both the royal train and scheduled train services. I hope that Her Majesty will consider an invitation to travel on the first passenger train that will pass through the Elizabeth line’s tunnels in December 2018.
	Even before that date, the project is breaking new ground. It is not just the largest infrastructure project in Europe, but the most technically challenging and the most ambitious. In a little over three years, the thousands of people who have worked night and day on the project have dug 26 miles of tunnels under London. Thanks to their work, the line is now more than 70% complete.
	Last May, Transport for London began operating the first section of what will become the Elizabeth line route from Liverpool Street to Shenfield. Network Rail has completed most of the work to connect the line to the existing rail network. In Derby, as I have seen for myself, Bombardier is building the first carriage of the first Crossrail train—a British-built train for a Great British rail line.
	When the Elizabeth line opens fully in December 2018, it will change dramatically the way in which people travel around London and the south-east. It will bring an extra 1.5 million people within a 45-minute commuting distance of London’s key business areas. It will increase the total railway capacity by 10% in the south-east, adding much-needed capacity to some very crowded lines. It will support our ambition of city-wide regeneration and shorter journey times for passengers. I am pleased to confirm that all 40 Elizabeth line stations will be step free so that they are accessible to all.
	We are proud of this investment, but it is not just about the current project work. The project will bring a lasting skills legacy to Britain—in particular, a skills legacy that will benefit many thousands of women. As Terry Morgan, the project’s chairman, has said, Crossrail has always been more than a transport project. It has been a blueprint for how infrastructure should be built in future.
	Today’s construction sites are sophisticated places, which require communication skills, the ability to multitask and manage complex projects, work in teams and win the trust of clients and site neighbours. Those are all skills that make such projects natural places for women to work. Through the building of Crossrail, they are steadily becoming a hallmark of modern construction. As a result, the project has broken new ground in the diversity of its workforce. Women make up almost a quarter of those in its graduate programme. Those are people who will go on to become the future leaders of the industry. Of the 10,000 people working on Crossrail, nearly one third are women. Through Crossrail, women are forging careers they never thought possible—a fact that we celebrated at a cross-party reception here in January that we called “She’s Building It”.
	Crossrail—soon to be the Elizabeth line—the Olympics, Heathrow terminal 5, and Reading and Birmingham New Street stations are rejuvenating the image and the economics of British engineering and opening career opportunities to our best and brightest, among them increasing numbers of women. I know that people working on the Crossrail project are already immensely proud of the legacy that they are helping to create. I believe that their pride can only be enhanced by the announcement that this amazing, groundbreaking engineering project will forever be known by the name of our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth. With permission, I commend this statement to the House.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. On behalf of myself and of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I am in the happy position of being able very much to welcome the announcement. Crossrail has had cross-party support over its lengthy gestation period, and we all look forward to the considerable benefits that the new line will bring in the years ahead.
	The naming of the line as the Elizabeth line is very much welcomed by Opposition Members. We have become used to the title Crossrail in recent decades. The renaming is a significant improvement on Cross London Rail Links Ltd, and Elizabeth is undoubtedly a much more elegant and fitting title for such an innovative and important transport infrastructure development, which will bring the benefit of better transport to millions of passengers from Reading in the west to Shenfield in the east. Given the enormous public commitment that has gone into developing the Crossrail brand, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Crossrail brand and livery will continue to be used?
	I pay tribute to the last Labour Government, who took the Crossrail project forward in their 10-year transport plan, “Transport 2010”, in which they reasserted that an east-west rail link should go ahead. Alistair Darling, the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced that the Labour Government supported the new east-west Crossrail link and committed to bringing forward legislation to enable Crossrail to proceed, which was critical in turning the aspiration and ambition of Crossrail into reality.
	One of the first ideas of the previous coalition Government, after they came into power in 2010, was to consider cancelling the Crossrail project altogether. Labour Members are delighted that not only is the project back on track, so to speak, but the Government’s conversion to supporting Crossrail has been so all-embracing that they have not only given the project their full backing but decided to dedicate it to Her Majesty. In that, they have our support.
	We all expect Crossrail or the Elizabeth line to change the face of transport in London and the south-east, whatever its name. I would like to draw the Minister’s focus to a few points. Crossrail is largely on time and on budget, so can the Minister confirm that it will indeed open on schedule? Will she inform the House of what lessons have been learned from the successes of Crossrail that can be applied to High Speed 2? The Crossrail service will share the Great Western main line to Reading, but sadly the electrification programme has slipped and will cost more than was first estimated. Will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the rescheduled electrification of the Great Western main line to Reading will be completed in time for the opening of the Elizabeth line?
	I was delighted by the fact that after some 35 years of planning and development, Crossrail finally broke ground on 15 May 2009, when the Mayor of London and the then Transport Secretary, the noble Lord Adonis, sunk the first pile into the docklands at the new Canary Wharf station. As we approach the conclusion of this most magnificent engineering undertaking, we remember the name of Crossrail with much affection and admiration. Although Crossrail is not dead, I wish the Elizabeth line a long and successful life.

Claire Perry: It is a delight to share, as we often do, a cross-party view—total agreement—on transport infrastructure. I would like to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
	Crossrail branding will apply for now, but the intention is that from December 2018 the Elizabeth line branding will come into force. The trains are currently under construction, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is not expensive to repaint and rebrand them, so I do not think that there are any costs associated with this welcome decision.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about lessons that have been learned from Crossrail and that can be applied to Network Rail. I would argue that there are lessons that can be applied more broadly. One thing that has worked well is the fact that the project has stuck to its guns—stuck to its knitting. It has resisted demands for deviations from the route and proceeded with its original plan, which it has delivered very effectively. Crucially, it has blazed a trail in engagement with communities who are affected by the work. I have been surprised, when I have visited stations, by how little the people around the stations realise that the work is going on. That is a tribute to the care and consideration behind that engagement. Another enormously important factor has been the engagement of the supply chain. The majority of supply contracts are let to companies outside the south-east and, in many cases, to small and medium- sized enterprises. Those are two important lessons for the future.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about bringing the project in on time and on budget. I emphasise that that is part of the project’s careful planning.
	On his question about the vital link between the Crossrail line and the Great Western main line to the west, I am happy to confirm that that work is on time and on budget, and it will absolutely be in place to ensure that the line runs. It is an enormous priority for all of us to ensure that the first trains can run from December 2018.

Tom Pursglove: I strongly welcome the Minister’s statement. Can she guarantee that in the final 30% of the construction process we will be trumpeting the use of British steel wherever possible?

Claire Perry: I am happy to confirm that that is absolutely the case. Indeed, 85% of the supply chain providing steel to the project is UK-based, and the 57 km of rails that run through the central tunnel are 100% provided by UK steel suppliers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that 61% of the firms that have won work associated with the project are based outside London.

Drew Hendry: I, too, thank the Minister for providing an advance copy of her statement. I will come to the name of the line in a moment, but may I first welcome the increased opportunities that the project has provided for women? More needs to be done to get the message out to women and young girls about the opportunities that are available for them. I also welcome the accessibility aspect, which is an important factor.
	A change of name can be invigorating. In Scotland, we found that the change of name from the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government provided a new sense of purpose, from which people were able to take confidence. In general, the change of name is a good move. The royal theme is continued in Scotland by the Queensferry crossing, the name of which was chosen by public vote. Will the Minister tell us about the mechanism for renaming Crossrail? The public have certainly embraced it with some vigour. The Minister described Crossrail as a great British rail line. On that basis, can she guarantee that all the ticket machines on the new Elizabeth line will be able to accept Scottish notes so that we can actually travel on it?
	According to figures announced just last weekend, the Scottish Government are investing twice as much per person in transport as in England, and have spent more per head on improving infrastructure than all the other nations in the UK since the Scottish National party came to power in 2007. I am glad to see some ambition today. May we have more of it to make sure that the people of the nations of the UK are better connected?

Claire Perry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for a very important list of questions. He is absolutely right to focus, as we are, on the diversity opportunities that have opened up as a result of this project. People too often think of engineering skills, particularly on the railways, as involving joining the wheel-tappers and shunters club, but it is not like that. It is a high-tech world in which people are more likely to go to work with a laptop than with a spanner. As I say, it is a growing industry partly thanks to this Government’s record in transport infrastructure, so it is one to which we would like to attract more women. There have been some little but subtle changes. The so-called man cage that takes people down into the giant hole where the tunnels start has, at the suggestion of the very feisty woman in charge of the work at Farringdon station, been renamed a people basket. That is a brilliant example of how small changes can make a difference.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the mechanism. Many people would like to claim credit for what is a very good idea, but I am sure if we put it to the British people in a referendum, they would—if they do not have referendum fatigue—overwhelmingly support this decision. Of course, the Queen did approve the decision. I think its genesis lies in the fact that she is now our longest-serving monarch—she has been on the throne for 64 years—and the name change is a very fitting tribute to the length of her reign.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Scottish pound notes. Based on my experience with London cabbies, I am very sorry to say that many people still do not believe they are legal tender south of the border. I will look into that matter and respond to him. Of course, I would like a revolution in ticket vending machines so that we can use mobile and smart ticketing much more often than cash when we purchase railway tickets.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the importance of infrastructure north of the border. I am sure he is delighted, as I am, that the west coast main line—the vital passenger and freight route that crosses our borders—has been reopened two weeks early, after the devastation at Lamington viaduct. I went to see it in the snow, with his party’s Transport Minister from north of the border. It was a difficult site, and I am sure we all want to pay tribute to the orange army that delivered that result and got the line open.

Louise Ellman: I welcome this announcement, and the Minister is right to praise Crossrail—the Elizabeth line. Does she think it is a suitable model to follow for Rail North, and indeed for the new northern transport body that has just been set up, Transport for the North, so there can be investment in new lines right across the north of England to make the northern powerhouse a reality?

Claire Perry: I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the announcement. She is right to focus on such parallels. Clearly, transport money is best spent when it is pulled through to satisfy local demands and to drive local economic growth. I am sure she welcomes what the Government have done. We have set up Transport for the North on a stand-alone basis and we have funded it, and we have asked the devolved authority to work on plans and proposals to drive forward infrastructure investment in the region. In his comments, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) referred to the role of Lord Adonis. I pay tribute to him for generating this idea and pushing it through, often, as with many rail investments, in the face, frankly, of opposition—

Andy McDonald: No.

Claire Perry: Well, the hon. Gentleman corrects me, but I am delighted to say that this is now happening. Lord Adonis now heads the Government’s National Infrastructure Commission, which has been tasked with looking at—this idea again has cross-party support and consensus—how we can best spend the ongoing investment in infrastructure for the benefit of the British economy.

Andrew Slaughter: Crossrail is a complex project, as the Minister says, especially where there are interchanges with other lines. At Old Oak, it interchanges with overground, underground, Great Western and, of course, HS2 services. Will she look at the very poor co-ordination of that interchange, where every company is doing its own thing, with the Crossrail depot being built in the middle of prime development land? She might like Lord Adonis to look at that, as he knows what he is talking about.

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the complexity of the project—some of the tunnels have been tunnelled to within 30 cm of existing infrastructure beneath the streets of London, which is an astonishing achievement—and of the interchanges, on which such decisions are often considered to be too complicated. The Government, TfL and Network Rail are working closely with the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation—that is another example of a devolved authority—to make sure that it understands its aspirations for the publicly held land at Old Oak Common. It is a balancing act and it is difficult to get it right for the future, but we will continue to invest in this vital infrastructure and we will make it work for the benefit of the British economy and of rail passengers across the UK.

Alison McGovern: I agree wholeheartedly with what the rail Minister and the shadow rail Minister have said about Her Majesty and about our brilliant railway staff. I am a former Network Rail staffer, and I worked with some fantastic women engineers. May I, however, offer the Minister some constructive criticism? Her statement made more references to services to Liverpool Street than to those to Liverpool. Now that Crossrail is moving towards completion, will she turn her attentions northwards, and will she say when she will meet a delegation from Merseyside to discuss rail services there?

Claire Perry: I talked more about Liverpool Street only because Crossrail does not of course go very far north at the moment. I have great respect for the hon. Lady, but she will know from her constituency that we have electric trains running between Manchester and Liverpool for the first time ever. That is tangible evidence that the Government are delivering both on infrastructure promises in the north and on rolling stock. I am sure that she, like me, has long thought the Pacer should have been phased out a long time ago, because it is not fit for purpose in moving people around such a vibrant and growing part of the country—the north—which I know she is proud to represent. This Government are taking such investment decisions. My door is always open to delegations from any part of the country that want to talk about how railways can further transform their local economy.

Wes Streeting: May I add my congratulations to the whole Crossrail team on this remarkable feat of engineering, which will bring enormous benefits to my constituents in Ilford? In particular, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who, as chair of the all-party group on Crossrail, has batted particularly strongly, if I may say so, for the longer-term benefits for the residents of Ilford.
	This weekend, I will join residents of St Peter’s church at Aldborough Hatch in my constituency to “Clean for the Queen”. May I therefore, on behalf of so many of my constituents, commend those who have come up with this fantastic and fitting tribute to our longest-reigning monarch for her more than 60 years of dedicated public service?

Claire Perry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and indeed for highlighting “Clean for the Queen”, which will have us all putting on our rubber gloves and getting out our litter pickers in the next few months. He raises the important point that this House is at its best when we come together to invest in major pieces of infrastructure that will transform the lives of those who will benefit directly, but also benefit those working for such a construction project or, indeed, supplying products for it.
	An outbreak of cross-party consensus is just what we need, and we of course have such a project with HS2, which I believe completed its Select Committee stage only yesterday. Frankly, I pay tribute to the Committee, because it has been a labour of love—[Interruption.] I am not going to comment on that. Spades will be in the ground from 2017, and the skills that many hundreds of men and women have built up—we now lead the world in soft-ground tunnelling—will be very useful for the Thames tideway, the HS2 work that is coming and, indeed, with the A303 proposals that will benefit my constituency.

Clive Efford: Could some of the efficiency that the Minister has spoken about with regard to Crossrail be applied to Southeastern, which has been providing an appalling service? Will she agree to meet a delegation of MPs from south-east London to discuss how that might be done?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman has long been a doughty campaigner for improved rail services for his constituents. I hope that he received a letter from me just a few weeks ago, which said that I hope to make a decision shortly about the long-awaited capacity increases, because I know that he is very concerned about the crowding on those trains. I hope to have good news on that very shortly, but, as he knows, my door is always open.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman received the Minister’s letter, his happiness would be as unalloyed as hers obviously is today. We are extremely grateful to her.

Points of Order

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There appears to be considerable confusion in the Government over which Department is responsible for making an application to the EU solidarity fund for assistance for flood-hit communities across the north of England.
	This is what I have found out from vague answers to parliamentary questions. In December 2015, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that it was a Department for Communities and Local Government issue. In January, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said that it was a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issue. A week later, the Leader of the House agreed. In early February, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she had not ruled out making an application, but a week later one of her civil servants wrote to me saying again that it was a DCLG matter.
	Whoever is responsible, the deadline for an application is just days away. The Government’s confusion and subsequent failure to act will potentially deny our communities hundreds of millions of pounds of much needed help. Will you please encourage the Government to sort this out and get a Minister here to make a statement, so that we can hold them to account?

Mr Speaker: Certainly, it would help if there were clarity. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for the Chair to adjudicate between what one Department says and what is said by another, but it is very important that Members know which Department is responsible and from whom they can expect an authoritative answer. My request to those on the Treasury Bench, therefore, is that they ensure that this matter is clarified authoritatively sooner rather than later. Pursuant to that objective, it might help if the hon. Gentleman is in his place for the business question tomorrow in order that he can probe the Leader of the House about it.

Gavin Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was devastating news for my constituents and the Northern Ireland economy last week that 1,080 jobs will be lost at Bombardier. Indeed, jobs will also be lost at Derby in mainland Great Britain. Is it in order to inquire of you whether Departments have made any approaches to come to this House so that we can not only raise the consequences of the decision, but seek an assurance from Her Majesty’s Government that there is support for innovation and aviation in our society?

Mr Speaker: I have received no approach thus far, as far as I am aware, from any member of the Government asking to make a statement on the matter. The hon. Gentleman may use the Order Paper to pursue his objective. Moreover, if he is so seized of the importance and, perhaps, the urgency of the matter that he wishes to debate it on the Floor of the Chamber, he will be aware of the opportunities that are provided by Adjournment debates. I have a hunch that he will seek to take advantage of those opportunities.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a two-headed point of order, if that is okay. The first refers to the exchanges that we had earlier with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on Short money. Will you confirm that it is indeed true that the accounting officer for Short money is the Clerk of the House, not the permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office? Has the Clerk of the House therefore been consulted about Short money? Why has the Vote Office—this is still the first head—still not been provided with copies of the consultation, when it pertains directly to the House of Commons?
	Secondly, will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that there is a process for Ministers to correct the record when they have inadvertently made a mistake? The Cabinet Office Minister, to my reckoning, made about 18 factual errors. The biggest was when he said that no cut was planned, despite the fact that his document says:
	“By contrast… A 19 per cent reduction will take Short money back”.
	I do not know what the difference is between a reduction and a cut, but I am sure that there is a means of correcting the record. I wonder whether we can make a special exemption on the number of special advisers for the Minister, because he is making so many mistakes that might be corrected by proper research.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for his point of order. Let me answer his two inquiries. First, I can indeed confirm that in respect of Short money, the accounting officer is the Clerk of the House. On whether the Clerk has been consulted, I am not at all sure. The Clerk is well aware, as I am well aware, of the consideration of policy on this matter. Moreover, I have seen a copy of the consultation document. Beyond that, I would not go.
	Secondly, there are any number of opportunities for a Minister, if he or she believes that the record needs to be corrected as a result of an inadvertent misstatement, to correct the record. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I feel sure that he will look to see the development of events. If he is dissatisfied, I have a hunch that his dissatisfaction will percolate through his contribution at the business question tomorrow.

Chris Bryant: Thursday.

Mr Speaker: Thursday, I beg your pardon. I am getting ahead of myself. It will be difficult, but we can just about wait for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution at the business question on Thursday. That is not to say that the matter will not be raised before then. I hope that that is helpful for now.

Air Quality (Diesel Emissions in Urban Centres)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Geraint Davies: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a bill to make provision about urban air quality targets; to require vehicle emissions targets and testing to reflect on-road driving conditions; to provide powers for local authorities to establish low diesel emissions zones and pedestrian-only areas; to restrict the use of roads in urban centres by diesel vehicles; to make provision about the promotion of the development of electric tram systems and buses and taxis powered by liquefied petroleum gas in urban centres; and for connected purposes.
	The invisible hand of diesel fumes is prematurely killing some 1,000 people per week in the UK. The Bill is designed to put the death-by-diesel epidemic into reverse, saving thousands of lives and billions of pounds. Today, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have published a joint report that shows that there is now killing by diesel on an industrial scale, with some 40,000 premature deaths each year. The Bill is supported by those organisations, the British Lung Foundation and the British Heart Foundation because, as is becoming increasingly apparent to all of us, air pollution is killing people through lung cancer, through lung diseases such as bronchitis and asthma, and through strokes, heart attacks and heart disease. It is also linked to diabetes, obesity and dementia. It is a public health disaster. In the UK, it is causing the loss of some 6 million working days a year and costing our economy £20 billion a year. In Europe, it is costing the economy €240 billion a year and killing 380,000 people.
	Diesel particulates that are absorbed by pregnant women can harm and hurt the foetus, causing low birth weight, organ damage, premature birth and stillbirth. Children who live in urban and highly polluted areas suffer from reduced lung capacity of about 10% on average and lower lung function in later life. Diesel particulates cause, rather than just exacerbate, asthma because they cause an allergic reaction and cell mutation in the lungs. In children, they cause coughs, wheezes, asthma attacks, worse concentration, worse memory and worse physical and mental development. Children are nearer the ground, so they suffer more. The first duty of mothers and fathers is to protect their children, but they are unable to protect them from this awful, poisonous belching.
	In 1952, 12,000 people died in the London smog. Today, similar numbers are dying every year due to the invisible fumes that are being emitted on an industrial scale by diesel-powered vehicles. Instead of coal fires, the new killer is diesel. The volume of traffic has grown tenfold in the last 60 years. Much has been done to stop the emission of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, sulphur and lead, despite the protestations of the motor manufacturers that it was impossible. Nitrogen dioxide and particulates now offer a new catastrophic threat to human life and life expectancy, and that threat has grown exponentially. In the 1980s, diesel cars made up only 10% of new cars, but by 2000 it was 14%. Between
	2000 and now, that figure has grown from 14% to 50% of new cars that are pumping out diesel particulates and nitrogen dioxide.
	The Government want to reduce carbon dioxide, and motor manufacturers took that as a pretext to encourage diesel instead of trams, hydrogen or green transport. In a similar way, after world war two, motoring manufacturers pulled all the trams out of our city centres for their own commercial interests. Now, the contribution of diesel to climate change is no better—indeed, it is arguably worse—than that of petrol, and we are passively smoking diesel emissions that are costing £20 billion and 40,000 lives.
	Taxation levels on diesel and petrol are on a par and do not reflect the cost to the environment and to health. Laboratory testing across the EU systematically understates the amount of emissions in the air that we breathe, and road emissions contain levels of carbon dioxide that are two thirds higher than in lab tests. For nitrogen dioxide they are four or five times higher.
	Things are made a lot worse by the revelation that Volkswagen was caught black-handed cheating emissions testing, and the difference between using a defeat device in a laboratory test and out in the field is twentyfold— 20 times the emissions are belching into children’s lungs from Volkswagen cars that are out on the road compared with those in the laboratory. Clearly, we need to sort that out. We have had the malignant growth of diesel pollution, and the mushrooming cost to public health. We have had the disaster of the industry saying that it will self-regulate but doing the opposite, and the first duty of a Government and a Parliament is to protect our children, the nation and the people of Britain.
	The Bill will ensure that vehicle emissions testing in 2017 reflects on-road driving conditions such as accelerating, decelerating and standing still, and it will detect cheating devices such as those used by Volkswagen. The Bill extends low diesel emissions zones and pedestrianisation, and it restricts diesel vehicles that fail the Euro 5 emissions standards from polluted urban areas—those are the most old and polluting diesel cars, some of which have a worse pollution impact than lorries. It encourages the development of green public transport, including tram systems such as the one I pioneered in Croydon when I was leader of the council. It encourages liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen-powered or electric-powered buses and taxis, and that in turn encourages walking and cycling because there will be cleaner air and less congestion.
	We also need pollution warnings as we do with flood warnings—perhaps the Environment Agency should be given that responsibility because the Met Office has been told to shut up since the last time it gave a pollution warning in April 2014. The public have a right to know when they are at risk so that they can stay indoors, or roads can be closed because of excessive pollution. I hope that the House will support the Bill, and that the Chancellor will take the opportunity of the Budget on 16 March to support green transport and ensure that the polluter pays principle is carried through to taxation. We must signal to consumers who have bought diesel cars in good faith for the future, and ensure that measures are transmitted into behaviour, as with previous signals. We need the right signals so that we satisfy our fundamental ambition and duty to protect the lives of our citizens, and ensure that the air that we breathe in our cities is clean and that the lives we lead are sustainable.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Geraint Davies, Peter Aldous, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Andrew Gwynne, Stewart McDonald, John Mc Nally, Jonathan Edwards, Alison Thewliss, Chris Stephens, Rob Marris, Ann Clwyd, and Ms Margaret Ritchie.
	Geraint Davies accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March, and to be printed (Bill 138).

WELFARE REFORM AND WORK BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 20 July 2015 (Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Programme)), 13 October 2015 (Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Programme) (No.2)) and 27 October 2015 (Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Programme) (No.3)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Nos. 1, 8, 9, 2 to 7 and 10 to 57.
	Subsequent stages
	(3) Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(4) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Margot James.)
	Question agreed to.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Lindsay Hoyle: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 2 to 6, 8, 9 and 11. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
	Before Clause 4

Priti Patel: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.

Priti Patel: The Bill is a vital part of the Government’s reforms that are moving this country to a high wage, low tax, low welfare economy. It is fundamental to our commitment to end child poverty and improve children’s life chances, and to ensure that work always pays more than a life on benefits and that support is focused on the most vulnerable.
	As is right and proper, the Bill’s provisions have been carefully scrutinised by both this House and the other place. Where appropriate the Government have tabled amendments to bring clarity or to remove unintended consequences, and they have made important commitments on supported housing and the social rents measure, on kinship carers and sibling adoptions under clauses 11 and 12, and on guardian’s allowance and carer’s allowance in relation to the benefit cap. The Government remain firmly committed to the aims and principles of the Bill as it left this House, and for that reason we wish to resist the non-Government Lords amendments.
	Before I address each area in detail, allow me to set out the key principles that underpin our disagreement with the Lords. Our view is that the addition of child poverty income measures is unnecessary because we have already committed to publishing statistics on children in low-income families through the “Households below average income”—HBAI—publication. Lords amendment 1 would also reintroduce a failed approach to child poverty that is focused on tackling its symptoms rather than its root cause, and it would drive perverse behaviour focused on lifting people just above the poverty line, rather than on a life chances strategy that could transform children’s lives.

Stephen Timms: Does the Minister accept that income has a huge impact on life chances?

Priti Patel: Income is one of many factors that impact on life chances and poverty, which is why the Government are very much focused on tackling the root causes of child poverty. I will come on to discuss that issue even further—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I know that Labour Members disagree with that, and they will soon have their chance to comment.
	On the change to the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance, and to the limited capability for work element of universal credit, I stress that the Government are fully focused on helping people who can work into work. We want to end a broken system that is patently failing those it should be helping, and ensure that a good proportion of the savings are recycled into long-term practical support that will have a transformative effect on people’s lives.

Neil Gray: The Minister mentions the fact that income is a factor in poverty, but the executive summary of her own Government’s report from January 2014 states:
	“The main factor is lack of sufficient income from parental employment, which restricts the amount of earnings a household has.”
	It is not just a factor, it is fundamental.

Priti Patel: I say to the hon. Gentleman and to all Members that work remains the best route out of poverty. Moving people into work, and helping their income grow once they are in work, is exactly our focus.

Mark Spencer: What would the Minister say to those of my constituents who have limited abilities? Would she say it is better to try to help and support them into some form of employment, albeit on reduced hours, or to write them off and say they cannot contribute to society?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the fundamental difference between our party and the Labour party in government. We are committed to supporting people to get into sustained employment, rather than consigning them to a life of dependency on benefits, which has counterproductive consequences.

Alison McGovern: The Minister is wrong, is she not? The new deal got more people into work than ever before, whereas this Government are taking money out of the pockets of working families. How can she say that she wants working people to feel the benefit when universal credit will make them poorer?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is wrong in many, many ways. For a start, this Government have supported more people back into work than ever before. Our welfare reforms are helping, through universal credit and our work coaches in particular, and by giving individuals dedicated support to help them not just get into work but remain in work.

Wes Streeting: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman shortly, but I would like to make a bit of progress. Before I come on to discuss the child poverty income measures, I would like to touch on ESA. I will come back to some of the detailed questions.
	When the Labour party designed the work-related activity component, it was intended to act as an incentive for people to take part in work-related activity and therefore move into work more quickly. However, with just one in 100 work-related activity group claimants leaving the benefit each month, it is clearly not working.
	It is crucial to make sure we have the right support in place to help people move closer to the labour market. As we all know, a large body of evidence shows that work is generally good for physical and mental wellbeing. There is also a growing awareness that long-term worklessness is harmful to both physical and mental health. Indeed, some of the major charities that the Department is working with agree that work can be right for some people after a diagnosis, and that improved employment support is crucial to helping people with health conditions and disabilities to move into work or get closer to the labour market.
	As we speak, the Government are working on a White Paper for this year, which will set out plans to improve support for people with such conditions, including the role of employers and improved integration between health and employment. I will expand on that later, but I will begin by addressing Lords amendment 1 in detail.
	Lords amendment 1 is wholly unnecessary, as statistics on low income are already published in the HBAI report. That information is available for all to see, and it will continue to be so. [Interruption.]Labour Members are chuntering away. They will get their chance to speak shortly. I think they should show me the courtesy of allowing me to make my points. Ministers in both Houses have committed to the continued publication of the information contained in HBAI. I hope it is clear to hon. Members that more than adequate safeguards are already in place to secure the continued publication of low income data.

Dawn Butler: Macmillan Cancer Support has warned that cancer patients could be at risk of losing their homes if proposed Government cuts to ESA go ahead. Does the Minister have anything to say to Macmillan?

Priti Patel: What I would say is that Macmillan has also said that many people diagnosed with cancer would prefer to remain in real work or return to their job during or after treatment. It is important that the House recognises—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) would like to intervene he is very welcome to do so, but I think he should let me finish my point before he starts chuntering away. It is essential that people suffering with cancer get the right support. Obviously, when people are in the ESA support group and are unable to work, they will remain in the support group and be supported financially.
	If I may come back to the point on Lords amendment 1 —

Owen Smith: rose—

Priti Patel: Is this on Lords amendment 1?

Owen Smith: It’s about Macmillan.

Priti Patel: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Owen Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. She prays in aid Macmillan. Will she confirm that it is opposed to the £30 a week reduction for members of the ESA work-related activity group? It is not in favour of it; it is opposed to it.

Priti Patel: I think Macmillan, alongside the Government, recognises that those on the support group will, rightly, not be affected. They will be supported, because they are in the support group and therefore obviously ill.

Neil Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: No, I will not give way. I am speaking to Lords amendment 1.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: I am going to make some progress on Lords amendment 1, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	I turn to why statutory income measures failed. They are flawed as they do not drive the right action to transform children’s lives. It is worth demonstrating that with a few examples. The Government are undertaking crucial reforms to improve people’s life chances, such as introducing the national living wage and increasing the personal allowance for the hardest-pressed families. Those policies will provide support for the hard-working families who need it the most, yet, according to Labour’s failed approach to measuring child poverty, their introduction would have supposedly led to an increase in child poverty. That failed approach incentivised the wrong actions. For example, it led the previous Labour Government to tackle the symptoms of poverty through expensive income transfers, such as spending more than £300 billion on working-age welfare and tax credits between 2003-04 and 2008-09, with very little return. The strategy failed to tackle the root causes of child poverty and did not a make a long-term difference to children’s prospects.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Priti Patel: I will give way shortly.
	The number of children in relative poverty remained broadly unchanged. In short, there are fundamental weaknesses in that system, which the Government are seeking to put right through our life chances measures.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister would perhaps want me to remind her that child poverty fell by 1 million under the Labour Government, which is something we should be proud of. Her own advisers advised against removing the child poverty indicators, so why is she headstrong in ignoring the advice not just of the other place but her own commission, which has said that this is wrong?

Priti Patel: We discussed this issue in Committee. I just reiterate that the Government are right in our approach: we are focused on tackling the root causes of poverty. Ultimately, as the Prime Minister said in his recent life chances speech, we are here to make sure we can tackle those long-term root causes. This is not just about measurement. The economy cannot be secure if we spend billions of pounds on picking up the pieces of social failure. Economic reform and social reform are not two separate agendas, they are connected to one another. Therefore, it is imperative that we focus our resources on how we can transform people’s lives, which is through tackling the root causes.
	The path I urge the House to take is the one that will incentivise the right action, and the one that the evidence tells us will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances. That is precisely why the Government are seeking to introduce the life chances measures contained in the Bill. The statutory measures on worklessness and educational attainment, combined with the non-statutory measures in the forthcoming life chances strategy—such as family breakdown, problem debt, and drug and alcohol dependency—will drive the right actions to transform children’s lives.

Eilidh Whiteford: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: Just bear with me a second. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]There is no need to be childish. I will give way to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).

Wes Streeting: I am grateful and surprised that the Minister has given way. I am sure the Prime Minister is delighted to see her back on message today, as she has not been in the past few days. She talks about the measures in the Bill. How can she go against the advice of her own Government’s commission when it says that
	“it is not credible to try to improve the life chances of the poor without acknowledging the most obvious symptom of poverty, lack of money.”
	When is she going to listen to the Government’s own advisers?

Priti Patel: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that we continue to publish data on low-income households. This information is still being published—[Interruption.] It might not be the information that the hon. Gentleman wants to know about, but we are publishing it, alongside doing something that previous Labour Governments successively failed to do—transforming lives, addressing the root causes of poverty and, importantly, ensuring that we tackle the causes that have led to child poverty in the long run.

Michael Tomlinson: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who made a point about child poverty but is no longer in his place, seemed to indicate that due to the recession under the last Labour Government, child poverty fell. Does that not show the fallacy of Labour arguments and reveal that we are trying to seek the root causes of poverty rather than provide some measure that simply does not work?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right. It is absolutely clear that when children are the future of our country, it is right to focus on delivering better life chances for them. When we publish the life chances strategy in spring, we will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances now and in the future. We must seek to rescue a generation from poverty by extending life chances right across our country. We must build a country where opportunity is more equal, with stronger communities and young people who can face the world with a background of experiences and characteristics that we know are vital for their success. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must seek to
	“transform the life chances of the poorest in our country and offer every child who has had a difficult start the promise of a brighter future.”

Stephen Timms: Did the Minister see the report published by the Centre for Social Justice last month, which set out a way of combining the life chances indicators—interesting information will be provided in them—with income indicators, so that we do not ignore income, which is so clearly a key aspect of the whole issue?

Priti Patel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his comment. We will publish the life chances strategy in the spring, and I think it will give us every opportunity to consider holistically all the factors that can lead to better outcomes for children and families. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point. On the back of the remarks I have made, I urge hon. Members to support the Government motion and reject Lords amendment 1.
	Let me deal now with Lords amendments 8 and 9, which as you indicated, Mr Deputy Speaker, impinge on the financial privileges of the House. These amendments would simply delete clauses 13 and 14 from the Bill. This would reverse the plan, announced in the summer Budget and endorsed by this House, to align the amount paid to ESA claimants in the work-related activity group to that which is paid to JSA claimants, and to align the amount paid to universal credit limited-capability-for-work claimants to that of the UC basic rate. Let me take this opportunity to stress the Government’s strong belief that this reform is the right thing to do. It is part of our efforts not just to improve people’s life chances but importantly to support them going into work so that they can reach their full potential. Let me explain why.
	Record employment levels and strong jobs growth in recent years have benefited many, but those benefits have yet to reach those on ESA. While one in every five JSA claimant moves off benefit each month, this is true of just one in 100 ESA claimants in the work-related activity group. This Government believe that people with health conditions and disabilities deserve better and deserve more support. [Interruption.] I appreciate that Labour Members have no solutions for tackling the wider issues surrounding welfare and would rather simply continue to spend public money in an unsustainable way. We have listened to charities and campaigning organisations who say that improved employment support is key to helping people with health conditions and disabilities to move closer to the labour market and, when they are ready, into work.

Neil Gray: I look forward to reading the Minister’s White Paper, but is she not approaching the matter the wrong way round? Should she not introduce the White Paper first and then look at making changes to ESA? What does she say to her colleague, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen)—I look forward to hearing her contribution later—who said on “ConservativeHome” this morning:
	“The beauty of this intermediate WRAG group is that it is just that—intermediate, on the road to returning to work but not quite there yet”?

Priti Patel: I rather think the hon. Gentleman makes my point for me in the sense that those in the work-related activity group need more support. Currently, they have been getting too little support. That is exactly the purpose of our reforms. We believe that we must tackle this issue, and provide—yes—the right financial security for individuals, but at the same time also look at the most effective ways to improve the wellbeing of those individuals by giving them support to get back to work. Almost half a million people in the work-related activity group get too little support to move back into work. We currently disincentivise them from doing so. As I say, they deserve better than that, and the Government are determined to take the necessary steps to transform their life chances by supporting them into work.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people are able to participate fully in society, and we have set out our ambition to halve the disability employment gap. It is a duty of Government to support those who want to work to do so, and most people with disabilities and health conditions, including the majority of ESA claimants, tell us that they want to work. Some 61% of those in the work-related activity group tell us that they want to work, and we mean to put those people’s ambitions at the centre of what we do.

Stephen Timms: We have established that Macmillan Cancer Support disagrees with the Minister on this issue. Parkinson’s UK, Mind, and Rethink Mental Illness, whose chief executive wrote to all of us, say that they strongly disagree. So can the Minister tell us the name of any organisation representing disabled people that agrees with the position that the Government have taken?

Priti Patel: What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we have been working with organisations and disability groups, and we have actually been listening to them. [Interruption.] Rather than making generalised comments from a sedentary position, Labour Members should realise that we are working with those organisations as we move forward with our White Paper—

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: No, I will not.
	The ESA system was set up by Labour in 2008 to support people with health conditions and disabilities into work. Despite being set up with the best of intentions, it has failed the very people it was designed to help. The original estimates were that far more claimants would move into work. A White Paper was published in 2008, setting out that the then Labour Government aimed to reduce the number of people on incapacity benefits by 1 million by 2015.
	We have spent £2.7 billion this year on the ESA work-related activity group, but as I mentioned earlier, only around 1% of people in this group actually move off the benefit every month. I think it is fair to say that this benefit is not working as anyone intended it to work and, most importantly, it is failing claimants badly. The Government are committed to spending taxpayers’ money responsibly in a way that improves individuals’ life chances, and helps to move people off benefits and into work.
	Those in the work-related activity group are given additional cash payments, but very little employment support. As the Prime Minister has recently stated, this fixation on welfare treats the symptoms, not the causes of poverty, and over time, it traps people into dependency. That is why we propose to recycle some of the money currently spent on cash payments, which are not actually achieving the desired effect of helping people move closer to the labour market, and put it into practical support that will make a genuine difference to people in these groups.
	In addition to the practical support, which is part of a real-terms increase that was announced in the autumn statement, we need to reflect on how spending the £60 million to £100 million of support originally set out in the Budget will be influenced not only by Whitehall, but by a taskforce of representatives from disability charities, disabled people’s user-group organisations, employers, think-tanks, provider representatives and local authorities. So far, we have worked with charities including Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the National Autistic Society and the Disability Action Alliance.
	During the passage of the Bill, Members of this House and the other place raised concerns that we are expecting claimants who have been found “not fit for work” to be able to work. That is not the case. Claimants in the work-related activity group have been found to have “limited capability for work” and that is very different from being unfit for any work. Of course there may be limitations on the type and amount of work people in the work-related activity group can do, and they may also need workplace adjustments, but employment is not ruled out. That is the reason for the ESA permitted work rules. The distinction is important, because the misconception helps to drive people further away from the labour market, perpetuates the benefit trap, and undermines the life chances of claimants.

Greg Mulholland: The Minister has mentioned fluctuating conditions. It is well known that mental health problems cause fluctuating conditions which are very hard to deal with, but 50% of the people affected by the cut in ESA have such problems. Surely that has not been built into the Government’s thinking. What analysis has the Minister made of the impact?

Priti Patel: I have just touched on what we are doing to find extra employment support. As I have said, we are working with other organisations, and I have named only some of them. However, the issue of mental health is crucial to the way in which we connect our systems, working with the NHS. A joint working group from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health is looking into how we can help members of the ESA work-related activity group with mental health conditions, provide signposts for them, and secure treatment for them as well.

Richard Graham: When the Opposition talk about income, what they really mean are welfare benefits. That is not what we mean when we talk about income. All the evidence shows that 75% of children in relative poverty will be removed from the poverty indicator if both parents in the household are working. There are now more children in families in which people are working than ever before: that is this Government’s record.
	As for ESA, some of us have met people with significant disabilities who are working, such as the people from National Star College in Gloucestershire who are now working with EDF Energy. It is amazing to see what a difference that makes not just to their incomes, but to their overall life chances and life happiness.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of work to people who have previously been locked out of employment opportunities. We have many schemes, but Disability Confident is a very good example of how we can work with employers to deliver sustained employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The Government are doing additional work on a wide-ranging employer strategy, working with employers specifically to establish how we can address the disability employment gap and how they can give people with disabilities more structured and sustained employment opportunities.
	It is important to recognise that the changes in employment and support allowance and universal credit work together, and cannot be dealt with in isolation. We have invested a significant amount in universal credit to ensure that we keep people connected and engaged with the labour market from the outset of their claims. Unlike those claiming employment and support allowance, universal credit claimants with a health condition or disability are offered labour market support, when that is appropriate, at the very start of their claim. That helps them to remain closer to the labour market, even if they are not immediately able to return to work. It also provides them with employment support, advice or training to get back into work, which, in the long run, will help them to obtain jobs.
	I stress that this change does not affect those in the ESA support group or the universal credit equivalent. It also does not affect the premiums that form part of income- related ESA. Moreover, existing ESA claimants will not be affected. There will be no cash losers, and the policy applies only to those who apply for ESA and subsequently enter the WRAG from April 2017. We also aim to protect those who move off ESA to try to work. Those who were receiving the component returns to ESA within 12 weeks because they could not cope with work will be able to reclaim ESA and receive the component again. Hopefully, that will help to dispel the myth that everyone who is currently in the work-related activity group will be affected by the change. Universal credit works in a different way from ESA, but we aim to put similar protections in place.
	This reform is a first and necessary step towards a wider reform package. In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Government would publish a White Paper this year that would set out our plans to improve support for people with health conditions and disabilities to further reduce the disability employment gap and promote integration across health and employment. That will include exploring the roles of employers.
	Clauses 13 and 14, together with the additional practical support announced in the Budget, will provide the right support and incentives to help people with limited capability for work move closer to the labour market and, when ready, into work. In the light of those arguments, I hope that Members will feel able to support the Government.

Debbie Abrahams: I support Lords amendment 1, which deals with child poverty reporting obligations, and amendments 8 and 9, which relate to the proposed cuts in the employment support allowance work-related activity component and the universal credit equivalent.
	Lords amendment 1 places a reporting obligation on the Secretary of State, requiring an annual report on child poverty to be laid before the House. The amendment stipulates that the report must include information on the percentage of children living in poverty as originally described in the Child Poverty Act 2010, and based on household income and material deprivation.
	The Bishop of Durham, who moved the amendment in the Lords, emphasised the importance of income to an understanding of child poverty and children's wellbeing and life chances. He said that income measures would not supplant the Government's other measures relating to worklessness and educational attainment. These measures will ensure that the income-based measures of child poverty, which have been collected in the UK and other developed countries for decades, will be retained, allowing year-by-year comparisons and holding the Government to account.
	Various charities, including the Children's Society, the Child Poverty Action Group and End Child Poverty, have called on the Government not to abandon the income-based measures of child poverty, as has the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In a letter published in The Times today, 177 child health academics have written in support of retention of those measures. Even UNICEF has urged the Government to retain the income-based measures that are used in the 35 OECD countries, and that allow inter-country comparisons.
	As has already been mentioned, the Government’s own 2014 evidence review of the drivers of child poverty found that a lack of sufficient income from parental employment—not just worklessness—was the most important factor standing in the way of children being lifted out of poverty. Even the Minister, in a recent Westminster Hall Debate, acknowledged that
	“Income is a significant part of this issue, but there are many other causes as well.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 72WH.]
	The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s 2015 annual report found that 2.3 million children were living below what is currently defined as the child poverty line, and the Resolution Foundation has estimated that in 2016 alone a further 200,000 children, predominantly from working households, will fall into poverty. That is on top of the projections of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the falls in child poverty at the beginning of the century risk being reversed. The 1% uprating of benefits alone in 2013 was estimated to have pushed 200,000 more children into poverty.
	Given the Bill and the four-year benefit freeze, it is entirely probable that the increase in child poverty will rise even more steeply. A recent inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies into the impacts of the Bill on child poverty and health showed clearly that it could lead to an increase in the number of children facing the misery and hardship of poverty by as many as 1.5 million by 2020.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there are one or two things that we cannot allow Ministers to get away with. Tax credit, for example, was introduced by a Labour Government because the Conservative Government had done nothing about child poverty in the 1990s. More importantly, the Government say they want to get people into work, but in actual fact people who do get into work get zero-hours contracts, and women cannot get child tax credits as the Government have cut that; so much for doing something about child poverty. In Coventry there are 18,000 people using food banks. The Government are doing nothing about child poverty.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend makes some very valid points and I am going to come on to some of them in a moment.
	The implication of these measures in terms of the future health and wellbeing of children is stark. There is overwhelming evidence that child poverty has a direct causal impact on worsening children’s social, emotional and cognitive outcomes. One witness to the all-party inquiry said:
	“As children’s lives unfold, the poor health associated with poverty limits their potential and development across a whole range of areas, leading to poor health and life chances in adulthood, which then has knock-on effects on future generations.”
	There was unanimous agreement from those who provided evidence to the all-party inquiry that although there is a positive correlation between worklessness and educational attainment and poverty, they are not indicators or measures of poverty. Let me reiterate that two thirds of children in poverty are from working families.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Does she agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others who have said that the prognosis for child poverty over this decade under this Government is bleak, and that what we are seeing in amendment 1 is the Government trying to hide information about what is happening to child poverty, rather than trying to tackle the underlying causes that lead to it, and that that is disgraceful?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend makes a key point, and I will come on to some of the specifics shortly.

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Lady talks about in-work poverty, but can she confirm that under the last Labour Government in-work poverty rose by 20%?

Debbie Abrahams: No.
	So how does living in poverty affect children’s development? People—

Richard Graham: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: May I just make these points, then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman?
	People on low incomes are often juggling to heat or eat, as we heard in this morning’s Westminster Hall debate on the bedroom tax. Being able to pay their rent is an increasing issue; 443,000 are currently affected. Having a secure, warm home with healthy, nutritious food are basic physiological needs. When these needs are not there, people’s health suffers both physically and mentally. This is particularly the case for children as they are developing. Being in work or well educated does not guarantee these essential needs; money does. Again, I make my key point: two thirds of children in poverty now are from working families.
	The lack of evidence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) was alluding, is stark. Why was there no Government impact assessment of these proposals? We should look at the evidence from the United States, for example. It has been analysing the effects of its social security reforms, and that shows that programmes that focus specifically on parental employment failed; in fact, they had no effect or exacerbated children’s health issues. Conversely, programmes focused on supplementing the income of low-income families improved health.

Paul Scully: Indicators are exactly that; they are not things that can be tackled, whereas this Bill seeks to refocus the Government position on the underlying causes and symptoms. Does the hon. Lady agree that, rather than seeking to hide the figures that she seeks to include in this Bill, they will still be reported in the households below average income report?

Debbie Abrahams: The point here is about making the Government accountable for their policies that may in turn be affecting those measures.
	I know the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) wanted to intervene, too.

Richard Graham: The hon. Lady is very kind. Both her party and ours are committed to ending child poverty, so the starting point is the same. The difference, in a sense, is the value of the relative indicator. She knows that one of the difficulties with the relative indicator is that quite often it will apparently improve during times of recession, but go down in times of growth. How effective does she think that is, therefore? About £300 billion was spent on benefits between 2003 and 2008. How effective does she think that expenditure was?

Debbie Abrahams: As a former public health academic, I will answer in the following way. We know the value of having indicators that we can compare over a long period; that is internationally recognised. They provide an opportunity for this Government and future Governments—and past Governments as well—to be monitored and to be held to account for their policies and the way in which they affect child poverty.

Helen Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to remind those on the Government Benches that the Child Poverty Act 2010 had four measures: a relative poverty measure; an absolute poverty measure; a persistent poverty measure; and a material deprivation poverty measure? We were not relying on one simple measure.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is spot-on, and again this is what the Lords amendment is asking for: that the exact same measures be included.
	I want to sum up on this point by referring to one of the witnesses, who is a clinical expert in child health. He said the Government are trying to refocus child poverty from “income-based indicators” to factors related to
	“family breakdown, debt and addiction”,
	conflating
	“the consequences of child poverty, with the cause—a lack of material resources.”
	That sums it up so well.
	Let us turn now to the UK’s infant mortality rate, a proxy for the health of the nation. It is currently in the highest quarter of all EU15 countries. I was shocked when I heard that, and for under-fives we have the worst mortality rate in all of northern Europe. We should be ashamed of that. We know that infant mortality is strongly linked to poverty and material deprivation. We know from national statistics that there is a fivefold difference in the infant mortality rates between the lowest and highest socioeconomic groups. There is not a law of nature that says that children from poor families have to die at five times the rate of children from rich families.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically calm, evidence-based explanation of why money matters, so does she agree that it is disappointing continually to hear the myth from the Government Benches that educational attainment or poor health is what causes poverty, rather than poverty that causes those things?

Debbie Abrahams: Again, my hon. Friend sums it up perfectly.

Richard Graham: This is a serious question. If the hon. Lady is saying that the evidence shows that the mortality rate of poor children in this country is worse than in the whole of the rest of Europe and the benefits that we are giving are greater than those in the whole of the rest of Europe, something is not working. What does she think needs to be done to improve that?

Debbie Abrahams: Again, the hon. Gentleman possibly does not have all the evidence. On spending-to-GDP comparisons, we do not do particularly well. The Marmot review of health inequalities concluded:
	“One quarter of all deaths under the age of one would potentially be avoided if all births had the same level of risk as those to women with the lowest level of deprivation.”
	Again, we should recognise that we are talking about people living in our constituencies. Evidence to the all-party inquiry showed that eliminating UK child poverty would save the lives of 1,400 children under 15 every year. Furthermore, good early development is strongly associated with many positive outcomes in later life, including higher educational attainment and improved employment prospects in adulthood. As another of the witnesses to the inquiry said, we are facing a child poverty crisis. Having made real progress in reducing child poverty in the UK, it is imperative that we continue to invest in our children, and protect and support the most vulnerable in our society. The introduction of the so-called “living wage”, the increase in personal tax allowances and more free childcare will not, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly shown, offset the net loss to low-income households from tax and social security changes, including those in this Bill. I therefore urge Members from all parts of the House to support this amendment—our children’s futures depend on it.
	Lords amendment 8 seeks to remove clause 13 and Lords amendment 9 seeks to remove clause 14. Clause 13 seeks to abolish the employment and support allowance work-related activity component for new claimants from April 2017 and replace it with universal credit. That would mean that social security support for people with a disability, impairment or serious health condition will reduce from £102.15 to £73.10, a cut of nearly £30 a week or £1,500 annually. The Government have argued that this is needed to
	“remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work.”
	The Lords rejected this on a number of grounds. First, people in the ESA work-related activity group have gone through the work capability assessment and been found not fit for work. This includes 5,000 people with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s—conditions that will not improve. It also includes people with cancer. A survey conducted by Macmillan Cancer Support found that one in 10 cancer patients would struggle to pay their rent or mortgage if ESA were cut. The key issue is that these people are not fit for work, so suggesting that removing financial incentives will somehow make them fit for work is ridiculous.

Richard Graham: rose—

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry but I have given the hon. Gentleman a number of opportunities to intervene.
	Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence of the extra costs faced by sick and disabled people, the associated poverty they experience as a result and the clear implications for their condition. We know that 5.1 million out of the 12 million disabled people in this country live in poverty. We also know from the Extra Costs Commission that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty, 80% of which is due to the extra costs they face because they are poorly—because they have a disability.
	Lord Low of Dalston, Baroness Grey-Thompson and Baroness Meacher’s excellent report “Halving the Gap?” expressed real concerns that the Government’s assessment of the impacts of this cut on disabled people, including the potential increase in the number of disabled people living in poverty, was inadequate. They assessed that the cut in financial support would have an injurious impact on this vulnerable group. The Equality and Human Rights Commission agreed, with its analysis being that it
	“will cause unnecessary hardship and anxiety to people who have been independently found unfit for work.”
	Thirdly, there is scepticism that there are employment opportunities for those sick or disabled people who may recover from their condition in the future. Approximately 1.3 million disabled people who are fit and able to work are currently unemployed, accounting for the disability employment gap of nearly 30% between disabled and non-disabled people. The Government have rightly said that we need to halve that, but they have been less open on how that can be achieved, and I agree with what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said about the disability White Paper. There is one specialist disability employment adviser to 600 disabled people trying to get into work.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Like me, she will see many of these people at her regular surgeries. It is clear to me from talking to them that the required support just is not there, and it is very expensive support that is needed. The Government talk a good game but do not deliver.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to move on to the support that is provided for disabled people through Access to Work. Last year, only 36,800 people received such support. Although I support the Disability Confident scheme, we must recognise that, across the country, there are only 112 active employers who support that initiative. How can we encourage and help disabled people who are fit to work into work when such limited measures are on offer? It is all topsy-turvy.

Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Lady agree that the incidence of disability and the incidence of lack of work opportunities do not go hand in hand, and the problem is not evenly distributed throughout the UK?

Debbie Abrahams: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point.
	The suggestion that working four or five hours a week should recoup the loss of income with the introduction of the so-called living wage has been questioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Disability Benefits Consortium, a coalition of more than 60 disability charities, has said that the proposed cut will push sick and disabled people further away from work and into poverty. It will not help, as the Government have claimed. A recent survey shows the concerns not only of disabled people—seven out of 10 of them think that their condition will deteriorate with the introduction of the ESA WRAG cut—but of the public as well. A Populus poll of 2,000 adults in January revealed that 71% think that cuts to social security will make the UK a worse place for disabled people.

Graham Evans: This Government spend £50 billion a year supporting people with disability and health conditions. That is more than France and Germany. If what the hon. Lady is saying is true, it is not just about money, is it?

Debbie Abrahams: Again, we need to look at our spend as a proportion of GDP. We are 19th out of 32—[Interruption.] No, France and Germany spend more. We spend 1.3% of GDP. We are 19th out of 32 EU countries. Contrary to what this Government perpetually claim about our generosity, we are not good at all in terms of the actual spend in relation to GDP. It was 1.6% of GDP in 1960. Now it is 1.3%. It is shameful. On those grounds, I ask all Members across the House to consult their consciences and support amendment 8.
	Let me move now to clause 14. Again, the Government have been more than a little disingenuous when they suggest that the reduction in social security support applies only to new ESA WRAG claimants from 2017. From this April, 492,180 people currently on ESA WRAG will start to migrate across to universal credit, which, as many people know, combines a number of benefits, including ESA, into one amalgamated benefit.
	Clause 14 removes the limited capability for work component for the work element of universal credit. That means that everyone currently on ESA WRAG will ultimately be transferred on to universal credit and will also have their support cut by £29.05 a week, or £1,500 a year.

Peter Dowd: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a stark difference between the warm words of the Minister of Community and Social Care earlier on, when he talked about parity of esteem for mental health, and the proposals to penalise people with acute and chronic mental health problems?

Debbie Abrahams: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree with him.
	What has been hidden so far is that this cut will also affect disabled people who are in low-paid work. Currently, 116,000 disabled people in low-paid work and working more than 16 hours a week receive the disabled workers element of working tax credit—about £60 a week—which they get as a result of being on disability living allowance or personal independence payments. They need that payment to cover the additional costs that they face as a result of work. Under universal credit, the limited capability for work component is the main additional financial support for disabled people in work and is meant to cover those extra costs. However, unlike the disability element of working tax credit, that is available only after working disabled people have been through a work capability assessment. If the Government go ahead and remove UC’s limited capability for work component from working disabled people, the inevitable impact will be disabled people dropping out of the labour market, thereby increasing not reducing the disability employment gap. It will have exactly the opposite effect to the one that the Government say that they want to achieve.
	It should be noted that for the 43,000 disabled parents on the disability element of working tax credit, withdrawal of the measure will mean that the family do not receive any extra financial support. The all-party report clearly shows the impact of the measures on child poverty. Children are living in poverty in 40% of families affected by disability. The inquiry found that that would become worse with cuts to ESA WRAG and the limited capability for work component. For those reasons, I urge everyone to support Lords amendment 9, which seeks to remove clause 14 from the Bill.
	I have discussed the effects of the measures in the Bill. I have provided evidence for my arguments, as there has been absolutely no impact assessment. We have had to find the evidence to identify the implications of the measures because, to their shame, the Government have done absolutely nothing. I remind the House that the Bill has been introduced on top of many other measures, including the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which imposes £23.8 billion-worth of cuts on 3.7 million disabled people. The independent living fund has been closed, and there is the threat of a further cut of £1.2 billion. Cuts in social care affect disabled people.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Debbie Abrahams: I am sorry; I am not going to take any more interventions.
	Further cuts are bound to be made as the hasty consultation on the personal independent payment earlier this year is pushed through. The Government have tried to regenerate the economy on the back of the poor and disabled. Work does not protect against poverty, and the poor and disabled have been made to pay the price. This is about cuts to our social security system.

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Debbie Abrahams: No, I will not.
	Instead of denigrating claimants in our social security system we should recognise the important role that the system plays. Like the NHS, the social security system is based on principles of inclusion, support and security for all, assuring us all of our dignity and the basics of life, should any one of us become ill or disabled, or fall on hard times. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House believe that the Bill is a step too far, and I urge them to support Lords amendments 1, 8 and 9.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Everyone can see that a large number of hon. Members want to speak in the debate, which has to conclude at 5.36 pm. If Members can keep their speeches as brief as possible we can get everyone in.

Paul Maynard: Everything comes to he who waits—and that was a long wait, everyone will agree. I will try to be brief, as I have seen how many Members want to speak.
	I want to explain why, despite some misgivings about minor details, the Lords amendments are not just wrong but a retrograde step that would make matters worse. No one in the Chamber would disagree that it is a policy failure that only 1% of WRAG claimants exit the scheme to take up employment. We should not lock that into legislation, as that policy failure is unacceptable. I see constituents who have come to my surgery because they are marooned in a no man’s land. Some have been found to have limited capability for work in the work capability assessment, and some have exhausted all avenues of appeal, but for various reasons they do not feel comfortable with transitioning to jobseeker’s allowance, even though in theory they might receive greater support to re-enter employment if they did so. I endorse the disability charities saying that we need more disability advisers in Jobcentre Plus. That is one use to which we could put the extra £100 million that the Government talk about.

Graham Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Maynard: I am sorry, I want to make progress so that everyone can get in.
	For many people, a response in mental health terms to a sudden onset of or change in a physical health condition makes their willingness or ability to engage in the employment market that much harder. The work capability assessment has consistently failed to adapt and accommodate those individuals. I recognise that a handful of individuals may be encouraged into employment by the changes announced today, but I believe the operation of the work capability assessment will follow the age-old pattern—every time it is changed, more and more people, almost by osmosis, end up in the support group. We have seen that year on year, time and again.
	Without further policy change, we could be back here in a few years discussing a sub-group of the support group. But that is a key point: we will not be back here in a few years’ time with the same policy framework. The Government are being more radical in their approach. If this were the sole policy intervention that they were aiming to make, I would share many of the concerns being expressed, but that is certainly not the case. We have recognised that the status quo is inadequate, and the Government are committed to reforming the work capability assessment. A White Paper is coming forward that will, I hope, reform employment and support allowance, which is a dinosaur of a benefit. It is unfit for purpose. It is the last remaining disability benefit that still sees disability as a matter of physical health, rather than a matter of physical and mental health. For that alone it needs to be taken to the knacker’s yard and put out of its misery. I welcome the Government’s intention to do that.
	If we agree to Lords amendments 8 and 9, we will not get a £100 million fund placed in the hands of the third sector to support people with limited capacity for work to try to get back into employment. That would be a wasted opportunity. We have managed to get 339,000 more people back into employment over the past two years. Everybody in all parts of the House knows the commitment of the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People to promoting the Disability Confident campaign. We all accept that the status quo is inadequate, and it would be the worst of all worlds to lock in a failed policy for the work-related activity group. That would benefit no one at all.
	I shall briefly touch on Lords amendment 1. There is probably more consensus on how we view poverty-related issues than those on both sides of the issue would like to admit. I do not deny that levels of income have an impact on poverty levels in my constituency. Equally, I believe that there are more fundamental drivers of poverty in my constituency that also need to be addressed. As the exchange between the Minister and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) indicated, this is not the end of the policy journey. There is to be a White Paper on how we implement our life chances strategy. There will be an opportunity to look at how we integrate into the policy package the different indicators that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) referred to, but Lords amendment 1 is fundamentally flawed. It shows a misunderstanding of how Government work. The Bill cannot place an obligation on the Government to pursue two broadly contradictory policy objectives for tackling poverty.
	If we focus solely on the “poverty plus a pound” approach as the answer to the problems, and at the same time oblige the Government to look at life chances indicators, that will divide the Government’s attention and the Department’s ability to focus on what matters. Opposition Members may disagree with the life chances strategy, and they are perfectly at liberty to do so, but they cannot expect to ride both horses at once and hold the Government to account for it. The Minister has made it clear that the data will still be collected and published. The Opposition will be able to look at that information, assess it and hold us to account for it, but Lords amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the Government fail on both strategies. It would not allow us any latitude to pursue what we have an election mandate for—welfare reform. When we get the life chances strategy, I suspect it will be far more sophisticated than what has gone before.
	It has always struck me as utterly perverse to suggest that the most effective and best way to reduce child poverty in this country is to somehow provoke a recession, because that will bring the income numbers down. Surely no one could say that that is the best indicator to utilise to drive change. It astounds me that the Opposition parties—for the sake of posturing, and because of what has happened in the other place—have decided that this is their chance to make a stand on the backs of the most disadvantaged once again, and to try to prevent the Government from doing something about this issue.
	I am proud to support what the Minister is trying to do. We have had decades of failure on this issue under Governments of all persuasions. At last someone is trying to do something, but from the Opposition we have nothing but cant, rhetoric and opportunism.

Neil Gray: I am glad to have the opportunity once again to set out the SNP’s opposition to this dangerous and despicable Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The SNP will vote to make these Lords amendments part of the Bill, to protect children and disabled people from poverty. In October, my SNP colleagues and I tabled a series of amendments to the Bill, which were, sadly, not successful. Today, I call on right hon. and hon. Members across the House to take this final opportunity to stand up to the Government’s regressive and punitive social security cuts.
	In my contribution, I will focus on the scrapping of child poverty reporting obligations, the ending of the ESA WRAG and the universal credit disabled work element. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) will also seek to contribute, focusing on the cut to the ESA WRAG, and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) will, I hope, discuss the report on child poverty and health by the all-party group on health in all policies.
	Let me turn first to the overhaul of the Child Poverty Act 2010, which removes the income-related measures of child poverty, replacing them with an obligation to report on children’s life chances and scrapping the target to end child poverty by 2020. Scrapping that target, when child poverty is on the rise under the Government, is a disgraceful dereliction of responsibility, which serves only to highlight the lack of will on the part of Conservative Members to do anything to reverse the growing numbers of low-income families—in and out of work—who live in poverty.
	Lords amendment 1, from the Bishop of Durham, Baroness Sherlock and the Earl of Listowel, would impose an additional reporting duty on the Secretary of State, requiring him to lay before the Houses of Parliament an annual report on child poverty. That report should include data on the percentage of children living in households on relative low income, combined low income with material deprivation, absolute low income and persistent low income.
	The Bishop of Durham, in moving the amendment, stressed the importance of income in understanding child poverty and children’s wellbeing. He tackled criticisms made previously by Ministers by arguing that income measures would not displace other statutory measures relating to worklessness and educational attainment. Speaking for the Opposition, Baroness Sherlock supported the amendment, noting that it would cost nothing and that it would allow the Government to be held to account on child poverty.
	SNP Members find it unbelievable that the Government would wish to remove all links to income in reporting child poverty. Income is fundamental to whether someone is in or out of poverty—there is simply no getting away from that fact. We have no problem with the Government choosing to report on life chances, substance misuse, family break-up and unemployment by household, but they cannot get away from the fact that substance misuse, family break-up and unemployment are not unique to those in poverty—far from it. However, by using those alternative measures in isolation and not using any income-related measures, the Government are attempting to characterise poverty as a lifestyle choice, rather than looking at the structural causes of poverty.
	Of course, such issues can impact on life chances, but income deprivation always will. An alcoholic single parent may be perfectly capable, for any number of reasons, of putting food on the table, a warm winter coat on their children’s backs or keeping their house warm. That may not be possible for a set of married parents who have no substance abuse problems but who are in low-income work. That has nothing to do with family breakup, substance abuse or unemployment—it is because of low income. So why on earth did the Government choose to ignore how many children do not have an outdoor space to play in safely or a place for the family to be able to celebrate a special occasion for them, or whether they can eat fresh fruit and vegetables every day? We know that 1.7 million children live in a family who want to heat their homes but cannot. The parents of 900,000 children want to put a warm winter coat on the backs of their bairns but cannot afford to do so. These are parents in and out of work, who are married or single. What is that if it is not poverty? We have to continue reporting on those matters.
	By removing the reporting obligations and targets on child poverty, the Government risk leaving themselves unresponsive to changes to child poverty rates over time, meaning that effective strategies will not be in place and the aim of eradicating child poverty in the UK will be lost. Two thirds of children in poverty live in households where there is someone in work. The new measures proposed by this Government focus on worklessness, not in-work poverty. These fundamental changes mean that we will not know how those children are suffering, and there will be no accountability on this Government, or future Governments, to respond.
	The Government’s own January 2014 evidence review of the drivers of child poverty found that a lack of sufficient income from parental income—not just worklessness but low income from work—is the most important factor standing in the way of children being lifted out of poverty. I quote directly from page 6 of the executive summary on factors now making it harder to exit poverty:
	“The main factor is lack of sufficient income from parental employment, which restricts the amount of earnings a household has. This is not just about worklessness, but also working insufficient hours and/or low pay.”
	The evidence is there in the Government’s own reports. Income is fundamental—the main factor in driving poverty—and therefore it must be a factor in measuring child poverty.
	One of the most common questions I get asked when discussing my job in this place is whether Tory MPs realise the damage this Government are doing, and will do, to individuals, families and society in general with these welfare cuts: are they so out of touch that they are ignorant, or are they aware and just do not care? To be honest, I have struggled to answer that question from my constituents and others. The briefings that we all get sent from third-sector organisations and other non-governmental organisations highlight what is at stake. I am sure that Conservative Members read them, as I do, so does their ideology simply blind them to the damage that is about to be done? This is children’s lives that we are talking about—children whose families have nothing. Of course we should measure that, of course we should want to tackle it, and of course we should set ourselves a target by which time we want it ended. Those who cannot see that—those who will vote with the Government later—should question whether their ideology is getting in the way of their moral compass.
	I turn now to the Government’s desire to scrap ESA WRAG and the corresponding limited capability for the work element of universal credit, as contained in clauses 13 and 14, which Lords amendments 8 and 9 seek to remove. Several hon. Members, including me, were at the launch of the review, “Halving The Gap?”, which the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) spoke about so eloquently, published by Lord Low of Dalston, Baroness Meacher, and Baroness Grey-Thompson, with support from Leonard Cheshire Disability, RNIB, Mind, the MS Society, the National Autistic Society, Mencap and Scope. The report, which was published on 8 December, found that there is no evidence that ESA WRAG acts as a financial disincentive to claimants moving towards work; claimants and organisations are concerned that those reliant on the benefit could be forced to work when many are too ill; the proposed reduction is likely to move those in this group further away from the labour market rather than closer; the removal of the £30 per week would reduce claimants’ ability to take practical steps towards work; the reduction in financial support is likely to negatively impact on claimants’ ability to look for work; and the reduction could discourage disabled people moving into employment as they would risk receiving a lower amount of benefit should they lose their job in the future. The review concluded with the recommendation that the Government
	“halt its proposed change to ESA WRAG and instead focus on improving back to work support”
	for disabled people
	“by ensuring it is personalised, tailored and meets individuals’ needs.”
	Lord Low, in particular, made some very pertinent points during the Lords’ consideration of these matters. He emphasised that a drop of £1,500 a year would take the income of ESA WRAG claimants from £5,300 to £3,800, which would exacerbate poverty among disabled people and be catastrophic for many who are in receipt of ESA WRAG. He said that
	“the claim that disabled people are more likely to get a job if their benefit is cut just does not stand up.”
	As he explained, the review found that the barriers that disabled people face in seeking employment are not any financial disincentives from ESA, but, rather,
	“employer attitudes, their health condition, illness or impairment, difficulty with transport, and lack of qualifications, experience, confidence and job opportunities.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1302.]
	Lord Low welcomed the Government’s commitment to addressing the disability gap, but said that the proposed cut would hinder people’s ability to look for employment opportunities. He also raised the issue of the need for tailored personalised support for disabled people to return to work.
	We must remember that before last year’s election the Prime Minister committed to not cut benefits to disabled people. The “Politics Home” website cites an interview the Prime Minister gave to “BBC Breakfast” on 31 March 2015 in which he said that his Government would protect disabled people from welfare cuts. This cut to ESA, affecting nearly 500,000 disabled recipients, makes an absolute mockery of that pre-election pledge. The cut will penalise sick and disabled people who are looking for work, will do nothing to help them into work and will push so many into poverty.

Sammy Wilson: Given that the Government have emphasised time and again the importance of evidence-based policies, is the hon. Gentleman struck by the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that a reduction of £30 a week would push people towards work and off unemployment?

Neil Gray: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. Those third sector organisations and disability groups with knowledge of this area say that the cut will actually hinder people’s ability to find work.
	Baroness Grey-Thompson’s speech on 27 January highlighted perfectly the issues at stake, and I urge those Conservative Members who are struggling with their consciences to read it. She said that,
	“if this measure goes through, a disabled parent who is working and qualifies as having limited capability for work will, under universal credit—the flagship element of government policy—have no extra support in work compared with a non-disabled parent in otherwise the same circumstances. What will this mean for a disabled parent? Single disabled parents working 16 hours or more, living in rented accommodation and making a new claim for universal credit in 2017, will receive about £70 a week, or
	£3,500 a year, less than they would receive now on tax credits, despite the rise in the minimum wage…For hundreds of thousands of disabled people, keeping Clause 14 in the Bill will be devastating. It means that far from there being an incentive for disabled people to get into work, find work and contribute to society in the future, those with deteriorating conditions will be less likely to stay in work.”—[
	Official Report, House of Lords,
	27 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1311.]

Paul Scully: On evidence, the hon. Gentleman suggested in an earlier intervention that WRAG was an intermediate group on the route back to work, but the fact that only one in 100 disabled people are finding work shows that it is a long-term group.

Neil Gray: What that shows is that the Government’s Work programme has been an absolute failure and that those who are on ESA WRAG take more time to get back into work and require extra support, so by cutting £30 a week this Government will cut their ability to find job opportunities, and that is shameful. I again urge Conservative Members to read Baroness Grey-Thompson’s 27 January speech in full before voting later.
	In October 2015, the Disability Benefits Consortium found that seven out of 10 disabled people said that a cut in ESA would cause their health to suffer. Almost a third said that a cut to ESA would mean that they would return to work later. Shockingly, a third said that they could not afford to eat on the current amount they receive from ESA WRAG.
	Scope is concerned that reducing financial support for disabled people on ESA WRAG will detrimentally impact on their financial wellbeing, placing them further from work, as disabled people have lower financial resilience than non-disabled people, with an average of £108,000 fewer savings and assets, and 49% of disabled people use credit cards or loans to pay for everyday items, including clothing and food. Mencap has said that households with a disabled person living in them will be hit much harder. A third of them already live below the poverty line, and the additional reduction in income will have a devastating impact on those who are in most need of Government support.
	As the WCA does not assess employment support needs, the financial support that a disabled person receives also determines their employment support. Those two things are not related, and they mean that disabled people do not get the back-to-work support that they need, in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). Evidence from disabled people’s organisations and official independent reviews have all highlighted the inaccuracies of the assessment, which means that disabled people do not get the right back-to-work support.
	There is insufficient evidence, if there is any at all, for the Government’s assertion that reducing benefit support incentivises people back to work. The impact assessment contains no evidence whatever to show that reducing support to disabled people in the ESA WRAG will incentivise them into work. Reducing the financial support available through the WRAG will create a bigger distinction between the support received by jobseeker’s allowance claimants and those who are placed in the ESA support group. The IFS supported that argument by commenting that abolishing the WRAG component could strengthen the incentive for claimants to try to get into the ESA support group. Ben Baumberg, of the University of Kent, agrees with that claim. He stated that the removal of the addition could lead to an increase in the proportion of claimants who are placed in the support group, because being placed in the WRAG could be a risk to their health.
	The Minister said in her speech that she had worked with and listened to the likes of Scope and Macmillan, but they still oppose the cut, and she must answer why she believes that to be the case. I was interested to read a story in The Guardian a few days ago, in which the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) were cited as possible members of a group of Tory MPs who are putting pressure on the Government on the matter. I am a less frequent reader of The Daily Telegraph, but I understand that they were also mentioned in that paper this morning. I read “ConservativeHome” even less frequently, but the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire wrote very well there this morning. [Interruption.] On this occasion, it was a brilliant article. She said:
	“What has suddenly changed in the lives of these individuals that they are suddenly fit enough or not fit enough to work? The beauty of this intermediate WRAG group is that it is just that, intermediate. On the road to returning to work, but not quite there yet. Recovering from chemotherapy, but needing to keep the heating on that little bit more. Many people who are ill are desperate to work, but need to be supported financially until their health improves. There are also structural and economic barriers standing in their way; reducing financial support only serves to create a further hurdle to be overcome. Many of these people have worked and paid in for many years before falling ill. They deserve better than this.
	The voters who trusted us”—
	that is, Conservative Members—
	“to build a fairer society deserve better than this.”
	I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and her colleagues who are thinking about supporting the Lords amendments. I desperately hope that those whom I have mentioned have been working on colleagues to join us in the Lobby later.
	The issues at stake regarding ESA WRAG and universal credit work allowance are the very same issues as those with the cuts to tax credits, on which many Conservative Members honourably lobbied hard. The measure will impact on low-income families and on disabled people who are looking for work. The cut will, according to the organisations mentioned, including the Equality Trust and Citizens Advice Scotland, disincentivise people from going into work.
	The Welfare Reform and Work Bill may well be the best example of doublespeak outside Orwell’s texts. The fact is that the Bill, as the Government would amend it, is unfit for work. The assessment of third sector associations, Opposition parties and the House of Lords is that the Lords amendments must remain. We have seen the Government forced through the courts into a welcome U-turn on the benefit cap for carers. They have also been told by the courts that the bedroom tax is discriminatory for disabled people. The UN is investigating the Government’s welfare cuts. Disabled people should not need the High Court to tell the Tories what is right and what is wrong.
	This is our last opportunity to oppose the Government’s plan to stop measuring child poverty, and to oppose their shameful attempts to slash by £30 a week support for people who are unable to work because of ill health or disability—a proposal that is vindictive and woefully lacks the evidence base to support it. I hope that Members across the House will think carefully and consider the impact that their vote will have on the lives of people up and down these isles. Having considered that, there is only one course of action open to us today—to oppose the Government’s shameful proposals and support the Lords amendments.

Heidi Allen: I rise to speak to Lords amendments 8 and 9. Reforming our welfare state was one of the greatest challenges facing the previous coalition Government and it continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing this Government. We are making phenomenal progress, with record levels of employment, and the Welfare Reform and Work Bill is unquestionably at the heart of this transformation.
	Welfare needed to change. I saw the restrictions it placed on the aspirational potential of so many capable people. In my business, I had bright employees shackled to the state by the impenetrable barrier of the 16 hours of employment. I know some doubt the power of universal credit to transform lives, but as a member of the Work and Pensions Committee I have seen it operate. I am in absolutely no doubt that it marks the beginning of a new age, in which the individual and the state are partners in the future opportunities of the individual and their family.
	Yet I feel an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu. Change needs to happen—but in a way for which those affected can prepare. We are debating whether we should cut the ESA WRAG allowance, which is typically provided to about 500,000 people recovering from significant illness as they transition from ill health to being fit to work. The Department for Work and Pensions talks about a White Paper that will set out its strategy of offering a different kind of support to help such people return to work, and some £100 million will apparently be made available by 2020-21. I listened intently to the Minister for reassurance about how that money will be spent. I acknowledge that she mentioned that a taskforce drawn from the Department and charities will be set up, but that should have happened before decisions were made to reduce financial support. I am uncomfortable about agreeing to the cuts until I know what the new world will look like for such people.
	I do not believe mentoring and support alone will heat the home of someone recovering from chemotherapy or help the man with Parkinson’s who needs a little bit of extra help. I remain unconvinced that these people do not also have financial needs. The DWP states that many people stay stuck in the WRAG for too long—up to two years—but I would question its conclusion that they are financially incentivised to stay in that group. For me, the fact that they are stuck in that group says more about the failure of DWP processes than about claimants’ active choices. People in that group do not have an easy time of it. They must demonstrate an appetite to transition towards work, and they can be sanctioned if they do not do so. Anyone who has beaten cancer must surely burst with the desire to return to a normal life and be unlikely to want to be labelled as a cancer sufferer for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
	From 2017, about 270 disabled people in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire alone stand to lose £30, or 29%, of their weekly income, if we accept the Bill in its original form and ignore the Lords. For them, I need to see more detail of the contents of the White Paper and to hear more about the financial support that will be made available before I can fully support the Government. If we do not get this right, we will damage not just the employment prospects and wellbeing of these vulnerable claimants, but our reputation and trust among the electorate. To secure my trust, I need to believe in the White Paper and that the £100 million will go some way to help those people. That is my warning shot to the Government. Today, I will not support them. I may abstain, but only for today. Let us get the detail right. Let us be a Government of sweeping strategic change, but let us also be one with the compassion and dexterity to look after the little man too.

Frank Field: One of the big changes in this Parliament compared with previous ones is that when we debate welfare reform there are now too many speakers, whereas in previous Parliaments the Whips had the key job of pushing colleagues in to speak. I will try to speak briefly.
	I am immensely pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) not only because of the role she plays in the House, but because of the particular role she plays on the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am also a member. Like her, I will speak in favour of Lords amendments 8 and 9, but I question whether the Lords are right in amendment 1.
	I do so not because I think in any way that it is not necessary for us to consider more regularly whether people who are out of work in our society have an adequate level of income. Most of us would find it near impossible to live on the scale rates, as they are cruelly called, that we give to people who are out of work. The fact that millions do so is a credit to their budgeting skills, which most of us do not possess. However, this debate is about more than what the minimum income is. It is about a strategy to prevent us forever and a day debating in the House of Commons the number of people who are poor in this country.
	I do not know, but it may be that the report that the Prime Minister asked me to write, “The Foundation Years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults”, will play a small part in the Government’s strategy on life chances. I argued that although income is important, merely measuring income is inadequate if we are successfully to counter the extent of poverty in our country. We ought to look at the drivers of poverty.
	As soon as I embarked on that analysis, I was struck by the information that was volunteered by the reception teachers I visited in different parts of the country. They could predict within a very short space of time—within the first half term of school—where children would end up. They could say quite confidently who would be head girl, who would find it easy to fly in this world, who would struggle and who would fail. That got me thinking about whether we needed to move beyond merely measuring poverty as the great driver of poverty and to look at life chances.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all Lords amendment 1 does is to require that income-based measures of poverty be reported alongside and on a level footing with other life chances indicators? They would not be reported instead of, but in addition to, those other indicators.

Frank Field: The report that I issued made that very point. It said that we should continue to publish the poverty data and that, alongside them, we should have the life chances data.
	Of course, there is much more to this debate than what is on the record. Historically, there has been a big divide between those who see money as the only agent to counter poverty—it clearly makes it easier for people if they have more money—and those who ask whether money actually transforms life chances in the way we wish. That is the question that I posed. Specifically, we wanted to know, while taking account of the importance of income and class in determining life chances, whether there were drivers of poverty more powerful even than income and class. The report lists the most powerful factors when income and class are held constant—those factors that enable us to make progress even if we are not making the progress that we would like to see on a fairer distribution of income.
	Again, I make a plea to the House. Although we ought to debate the adequacy of the minimum levels of income, Opposition Members and the many Government Members who are disturbed by the growing and gross inequalities in our society must not think that we will deal with those through benefit changes, important though they are. Throughout the western world, there are clearly great engine drivers of inequality that serve up to the rich—particularly to the very, very rich—rewards that are grotesque when compared with the average, let alone with those who earn the least in our communities. There is no debate about that. The debate is about where, at any given point in time, we should put taxpayers’ money. Up to now, everybody has been talking about this as though the Government have money. Governments have to tax our constituents to get money to redistribute it, and we must win people’s support for that.
	The House is beginning slowly to accept that it is dangerous to have a welfare system that is more generous to those out of work than to those in work, which is why I particularly welcome the Chancellor’s strategy of moving towards a living wage and implementing that over the life of the Parliament. It is only a beginning, but it is very important. If we are successful in moving to that living wage without big unemployment consequences—I believe that we will be—that will give us more freedom to manoeuvre on where benefit levels should be set.
	My plea is that we should not think that this is either one thing or the other. The Government will publish the data, and I am sure that if we had a chat to them they could do so alongside the life chances data. That is not really what the debate is about; the debate is about those who believe that the only agent of change is on the income front, and I do not wish to concede ground to anyone in emphasising the importance of income, especially for those at the bottom of the pile who are working or who are not working. We have the report on the foundation years, and if we are serious about trying to prevent poor children from becoming poor adults, we need a different strategy from the one we adopted until that point. It was all about cash transfers—important as those are—and I thought it was inadequate.
	Reception teachers said that by the time children come to school they already know who is going to succeed and who will not. I also started asking other people such as health visitors whether they could tell us which children entering toddlerhood would be successful in later life. Midwives have clear views when mothers turn up for their first scan about who has drawn the short straw and who has not. If we are serious about this strategy—I make this plea to the Government because we will need powers to add these measurements once we have agreed on them—we must measure whether we are increasing life chances by having more parents who are ready for the birth of their child, whether the interventions that we make after that will be successful and see more children successfully enter toddlerhood, and above all whether more children are entering school ready to benefit from the powers of education.

Philippa Whitford: Is measuring at key stage 4 when a young person is 16 so utterly after the horse has bolted that it will not make any impact? Teachers report a year’s difference in a child’s ability to communicate and learn by the time they are five, and we need to change that. No Opposition Members are talking about money or life chances; most of us are arguing for both.

Frank Field: The genuineness of the hon. Lady in making that point shows how the debate is changing—it was not always about that issue and I am grateful for her intervention. Let me re-emphasise her point. I was staggered when the Secretary of State said that one of children’s key life chances is at age 16, given that he has done more than anybody in the House to teach us about how crucial life chances are before age five, if we are really to change people’s opportunities and allow them to develop their best selves. I hope that when we conclude the debate, the Minister will say more about how important it is to weight those life chances before age five. By all means we should measure children at 16 and all sorts of other ages if we wish, but if we are serious about changing the life chances of the very poorest children in our constituencies, we must consider a series of life chances long before they reach school. Every reception teacher I met would say that life chances have been decided by the time that children come into school.
	I welcome how the debate has developed in the past 10 years, and I hope I have stated clearly why I think the Lords are mistaken with Lords amendment 1, and how much I agree with the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) who stated her support for Lords amendments 8 and 9.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: I was going to call Mr Maynard.

Paul Maynard: I have already spoken.

Mr Speaker: Ah, I did not realise the fellow had already spoken. [Interruption.] No, no, I do not think he needs to repeat his speech! He was on the list, but had not been ticked off it. Never mind. We will hear from another fellow instead, Mr Peter Heaton-Jones.

Peter Heaton-Jones: It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who speaks with unrivalled expertise on these matters. I agree with his fundamental point. I speak to oppose Lords amendment 1, which seeks to amend clause 4, as passed by this House. I do so as a member of the Bill Committee that scrutinised the Bill—during 15 sittings or so, if I recall—last autumn. Clause 4, as passed by this House, introduces a new duty for the Secretary of State to report annually on two Life Chances measures: first, the proportion of children living in workless households; and secondly, as has been mentioned, their educational attainment at age 16. In effect, therefore, it repeals most of the Child Poverty Act 2010.
	The Lords amendments in effect seek to replicate the parts of the 2010 Act that relate to the measurement of the proportion of children living in poverty. In particular, their lordships’ amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to report on four specific measures: relative low income; combined low income and material deprivation; absolute low income; and persistent poverty.
	However, the Bill, as passed by this House, does not mean that the Government will stop measuring and publishing such data on household income. The Government will continue to publish annually low-income data in Households Below Average Income. Those data include—Members may get a sense of déjà vu all over again—relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation. They probably ring bells, because those categories replicate almost exactly the measurements that the amendments from the other place seek to reinstate in the Bill. To put it simply, the Government are already doing it. The information is available for all to see and will continue to be so. The HBAI publication has protected status as a national statistics product and Ministers have undertaken in this House to publish the data annually. Lords amendment 1 is—I say this with the greatest respect—simply unnecessary. Its effect would merely be to replicate something the Government are already doing.

Neil Gray: My understanding, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, is that there is no statutory obligation on that reporting. There is certainly no statutory obligation to eradicate child poverty by a specified time, which is crucial.

Peter Heaton-Jones: The Government have made a commitment to continue to publish the data annually. They have been very clear about that fact. When it comes to the relationship between those measurements and the eradication of child poverty, under the previous Labour Government the number of households where nobody worked doubled and in-work poverty increased: the Government missed their child poverty target by 600,000.
	The Bill, as passed by this House, does not redefine poverty to exclude income, as some of its opponents often say. That argument assumes that measuring income is an effective, helpful or comprehensive way of measuring poverty in the first place. It is, in fact, none of those things. In that respect, the 2010 Act was flawed in its approach. The current income measures enshrined in the Act show that the number of children in relative poverty can actually go down in a recession and up in times of growth. That is simply perverse. Furthermore, the measures incentivise what is often known as a “poverty plus a pound” approach, where families can seemingly be moved out of poverty without any change whatever in the underlying factors that got them into the position of low income in the first place. The Act is simply not doing what it is intended to do.

Kevin Foster: It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend’s points. Does he agree that under current measures the only way completely to eliminate relative poverty would be to collapse the economy completely and make absolutely everyone poor?

Peter Heaton-Jones: It sounds like my hon. Friend has been reading the Labour party’s manifesto. The 2010 Act is flawed, and in seeking, in effect, to reinstate its provisions, the Lords amendments are similarly found wanting.
	Let us look at what the Bill, as passed by this House, actually does in its current format and why their lordships’ amendments are not in my estimation constructive in seeking to reverse these measures. The Bill enshrines in legislation the Government’s commitment to end child poverty and to improve children’s life chances. It focuses on the actions that we know will make the biggest difference to the life chances of children and young people—both now and in the future. We need measures that drive the right action to tackle the root causes of poverty rather than just tackling the symptoms. That is why the Bill introduces the new life chances measures of worklessness and educational attainment.
	The Government’s policies in targeting life chances importantly look at outcomes, not inputs—it is a comprehensive approach—recognising that the real route out of poverty is through work, not welfare. Some 74% of previously less well-off, workless families who found work have escaped “the poverty trap”, if one can use that phrase.
	The Bill seeks to replace the wholly arbitrary measure that a household is in poverty if its income is below 60% of the median wage. That is totally arbitrary. In a recession, with all households’ income tending to reduce, it gives the completely false impression that fewer households are in poverty because their relative income is seen to rise. It is totally perverse—a recession leading to less poverty. The figures simply do not add up. It is a discredited system, and it did nothing under the previous Government to tackle the underlying root cause of childhood poverty. I therefore submit that these amendments are wrong to try to reinstate that old discredited system. It beggars belief that some people believe that we can base our strategy for improving children’s life chances on income measures that would suggest that the last recession somehow caused a significant fall in child poverty. Of course we should not do so, but that would be the effect of the Lords amendments if this House accepts them.

Neil Gray: That is why, of course, it is important to have a package of measures, so that we can look at all aspects of how children and their families are living in poverty. We should not assess just relative low-income measures; we should include other measures such as material deprivation, which is critically important.

Peter Heaton-Jones: Material deprivation is one of the things that will continue to be measured by the HBAI statistics. It will still be included—[Interruption.] I am sure that the Minister will rise to her feet and reflect this fact; a commitment has been made that the measure of material deprivation will continue to be published annually. It will continue to be part of the official ONS Government statistics. The hon. Gentleman says that we need a package of measures, but that is exactly what we get. We get the HBAI information; we get those statistics; we get the commitment that these data will be published annually and enshrined, as I say, by the ONS. On top of that, we get what the Government suggested in the original Bill, which this House passed—further measures of attainment. We get the best of both worlds.

Neil Gray: rose—

Peter Heaton-Jones: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way again. He has already had a couple of bites at this particular cherry—

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me gently say to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) that he has already given us the benefit of his views for no fewer than 19 minutes, by which I assure him we are all greatly gratified, but 11 Members still want to speak. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in trying to intervene, but I am trying to set out the context, and I know colleagues will want to be considerate of each other.

Peter Heaton-Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall take what you say as a gentle reminder for me to move things on, too. I shall do so.
	Moving households closer to employment is what improves the life chances of young people in the long term. That is why the Government are focusing on getting parents into work, and then getting their children into work through education. We are tackling the cycle of deprivation that has stifled the ability of too many children to reach their full potential for too long, and has condemned generation after generation to a life in which underachievement and a lack of aspiration become inevitable.
	The Government are seeking to change that cycle fundamentally. We are committed to the far more effective approach of targeting the root causes of poverty, which include a lack of educational attainment and family stability. Work remains the best route out of poverty, and higher educational attainment is the best route into work. That is why the Bill that was passed in the House of Commons seeks to introduce two key measures of poverty, namely the proportion of children living in workless households and educational attainment at the age of 16. The Government are focusing on those factors because they have the greatest impact on child poverty and the life chances of children. The Lords amendments propose a reliance on spurious measures which will do nothing to tackle the problems at their sources. They are misguided, and we should therefore not support them.

Alison McGovern: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling to speak in this important debate. I shall be as quick as I can.
	Let me begin by pointing out to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that we already measure educational attainment, and we already measure worklessness. It is not a question of what we should repeat; it is a question of what matters. I shall not go into detail about the hon. Gentleman’s comments about “spurious measures”. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) will do that shortly, so I shall leave it to her.
	I want to return the debate to the basics. What are we debating today? What do we mean by transparency in regard to child poverty? That is a very simple question about what we in the House believe poverty to be. Should it be defined as a measure of income, or as a measure of educational attainment or worklessness? We already apply those measures to other statistical estimates of what is going on in our country, but what does the law say about what poverty is?
	I asked myself this question: does the amount of money that people have make them poor? Well, it seems obvious to me that it does. A parent—a lone parent, for instance—might not be well paid and might be unable to work many hours. That parent would not suffer from worklessness, but he or she would still be poor. A child might achieve great things at school, securing all the certificates and qualifications, and still suffer the effects of not having enough money at home. Plenty of children go to school, work hard and do well, despite seeing their parents suffer from the stress of trying to pay the mortgage or the rent, or not having enough money to put in the electricity meter so that they can wash their school uniforms. That happens to plenty of children. This is not about educational attainment or worklessness; it is about the fact that the cause of poverty is not having enough money.
	Why does that matter? It matters because, in the coming years, the Tories are going to make people poor, and, specifically, they are going to make children poor. We know that, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has told us. Families will be worse off, despite the so-called living wage—many of them will be in work—and their children will be affected, whatever the qualities of their teachers at school, which may be legion. We have some fantastic schools in this country, which help children to achieve despite poverty at home.
	The next question is straightforward: what should we do about the situation? The Government have made clear that they do not think money makes a difference to life chances. I have made clear that I think it does, but why would anyone listen to me? I am a Labour politician. However, there is independent evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned some of it in her fantastic speech, but I can add the information that Kitty Stewart and Kerris Cooper, of the London School of Economics, reviewed 34 studies of whether family incomes affected children’s outcomes throughout the OECD, and found that family income mattered. What is the point of having some of the world’s finest researchers if we do not listen to them? We know from an FOI request that of the 250 replies on the issue to Government consultations, only two agreed with their desire to forget about reporting on the income target. The vast majority of people agreed that money matters.
	In conclusion, I say that this issue matters and that the Lords are right for two reasons: it matters because of the principle and it matters because of the evidence. It is possible to be poor and in work in our country, and it is possible to be poor and do well at school in our country, and it matters what those people’s lives are like. We must not forget about being transparent about the poverty in our country. It is the cause of ill health and distress, and that is why in principle it matters. The evidence says that money matters, alongside a good education and a healthy life, to outcomes. So if we do not act on money, we embed disadvantage in our country. Therefore, let us not say to those who work too hard for too little, “You don’t count.” Let us not say to children doing well at school despite poverty at home, “You don’t count.” On behalf of those families and all families and their children, I ask the Government to think again.

Jeremy Lefroy: I would like to address Lords amendments 8 and 9 and the question of employment and support allowance and the work-related activity group, which is the group of people who currently have limited capacity for work.
	I support the Government’s intention to enable more people who are on ESA to go back into work, but, as the Minister said, that is not happening, with only 1% per month of that group of nearly 500,000 people returning to work. The Government’s proposal to combat that is to remove the additional amount paid, starting from the 14th week, to people assessed as being within that group, and at the same time they wish to introduce a completely new system of support designed to help people back into work. The new system of support will be set out in a White Paper, which has not yet been published. What we do know is that the system is expected eventually to be funded at approximately £100 million a year, and I will come back to that.
	That White Paper is incredibly important to the matter we are discussing, because it is the replacement for what the Government are proposing to remove. I would like to set out four things that I believe the new system of support that the Government are proposing must have within it.
	First, it must ensure that people’s assessments are done much more quickly than at present. Currently, people are waiting for assessments for months, and during that time they receive just the basic assessment rate, which is the equivalent of jobseeker’s allowance, regardless of whether they eventually go into the WRAG or the support group. For those whose condition means they have additional costs to what is assumed for those on JSA—for instance, as has been mentioned, energy bills—that can mean a struggle to pay those costs. That can lead to them going into debt, regardless of whether they eventually go into the support group or the WRAG, or indeed into neither. I believe that all work capability assessments should be completed well within the 13 weeks for which claimants are on the assessment rate so, that they are not put at a disadvantage by the slowness of the system. I would like to see clear evidence in the White Paper that that is going to happen, because it would benefit not just people going into the WRAG but people going into the support group.
	Secondly, the assessments themselves need to be more sensitive. That particularly applies to people with mental health conditions, who are about 50% of those in the WRAG. That is another reason for ensuring that people have their assessments rapidly. If they have mental health conditions and need support, the earlier they receive it, the better. As the noble Baroness Meacher said in the other place:
	“Common sense tells us that someone with an anxiety disorder or depression will find rising debts and the prospect of eviction from their home impossible to cope with.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1306.]
	Thirdly, the new system of support will need to be based on clear evidence of what works for people, so I ask the Minister whether the proposals in the White Paper will be piloted to see whether they work, or whether they will be based on current best practice. If it is the former, there is little time, as they will need to be in place by April 2017.
	Fourthly, the new system must include a full and accessible scheme for cash payments over and above the assessment rate to meet additional costs if people have them. I have already referred to the extra energy costs arising from people having to stay at home much more as a result of their illness or disability. There may also be costs for special diets and so on. I mention accessibility because I have seen schemes where support is available but very difficult to obtain—people have to jump through hoops to get it. Anyone who is assessed for the WRAG under the new system should therefore automatically be asked about additional costs resulting from their condition that are not covered by PIP. Those costs should be evaluated rapidly and, if accepted, met. When the White Paper is published, I will look for it to address those four points.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has made thoughtful points. Does he not accept that the problem is that we are being asked tonight to vote to take financial support away from people, without the safeguards that he has outlined being known? It is like taking a jump in the dark, and the Prime Minister has told us that that is not a good thing to do.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is like that, and I would have preferred to see an assessment such as I proposed in the amendment that I tabled on Report. I hoped that perhaps the Lords would take that up, because it is important. To some extent, it is an act of faith in the Government and in the White Paper, and that is why I am setting out these points now. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said, we hope to see action on them.
	I have already talked about accessibility, which is extremely important. When somebody is assessed for a group, they should be asked about accessibility instead of being referred to somewhere they might find difficult or somewhere they do not even know. That should be part of the assessment process and run by the Department for Work and Pensions, not other Departments
	When the White Paper is published, which I hope will be as soon as possible, I will be looking for it to address all those points. If it does, they system may well work better for people on ESA who can move back into work. Let us remember that this is about people who have limited capacity for work, not people who cannot work, who must continue to be in the support group and receive the support supplement.
	The risks of a scheme that does not meet those criteria are considerable, first and foremost for the people involved, who may end up in limbo, neither helped into work nor able to meet even their basic living costs. They may end up in the support group long-term, which is not in their interest or the public interest.
	This will cost more than £100 million per annum, which is what has been allocated—probably considerably more. But if the Government are serious about supporting people back into work, as I know they are, a good scheme that is initially more expensive will both be better for those who need support and probably cost the taxpayer less in the long run. I therefore urge the Chancellor to back such a scheme with the funding it needs, and the Minister and the Secretary of State to push for it. The status quo, as embodied in the Lords amendments, is not satisfactory, but its replacement must be an improvement for those in the WRAG—we cannot afford to go backwards.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I want to speak to Lords amendments 1, 8 and 9. When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I did not intend to say much about Lords amendment 1, but I was so incensed by the way in which the Minister dealt with the issue earlier, and by her total lack of compassion for anyone who might be affected by the measures in the Bill, that I thought I must say something. I must point out to the House the contrast between her approach and that taken by the Bishop of Durham when he moved amendment 1 in the other place, because his approach was measured, based on evidence and full of compassion and care for the people affected. He pointed out what I think is self-evident to most of us in this Chamber, which is that
	“low income is an important influence on children’s outcomes and life chances”.
	In fact, we have had an often bizarre discussion today in which there is the suggestion that, somehow, child poverty is about a whole collection of measures, and nothing to do with income, which is clearly ludicrous. The Bishop of Durham said that
	“the Government’s concern about the current child poverty measures is that they have encouraged an overdependence on income transfers, diverting attention from policies that tackle the root causes of poverty.”
	He said that, as I pointed out earlier, Lords amendment 1
	“does not seek to reassert the primacy of the existing child poverty measures: it simply requires that income-based measures of poverty be reported on alongside, and on a level footing with, other life chance indicators, such as worklessness and educational attainment, in order to acknowledge the significance of family income for children’s well-being and future prospects.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1047.]
	That is particularly important, because we have an assessment from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that the Government’s desire to close the fiscal deficit chiefly through spending cuts means that the prognosis for child poverty over this decade is bleak. We do not want a range of Government measures that make it more difficult for us to assess the impact of cuts on child poverty and the direct relationship between child poverty and low income. I have heard nothing from the Minister today to persuade me that she is following the right approach.

David Burrowes: I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but is she not advocating a return to the past? Does she not recognise that it is not an either/or situation, but a both situation? Reintroducing child poverty measures is, at the very least, arbitrary and could have unintended consequences.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just point out that if Members continue in this way, and it is perfectly in order for them to do so, there will be some who will not get in? It is as simple as that. If everyone speaks for five minutes or more and takes interventions, a number of people will not get called to speak. It will be no good blaming the Chair; you will have to blame each other.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: There is no way at all that we can say that the relationship between a person’s income and poverty is an arbitrary measure. I say to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that I have made it very clear, for the third time now, that Lords amendment 1 is about requiring an income-based measure alongside—not instead of—other measures.
	We have heard many attacks on Labour’s record this afternoon. Labour reduced child poverty by almost 1 million. The independent assessment by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others was that it was a remarkable achievement, certainly without historical precedent in the UK, and impressive compared with other countries too. Rather than deriding our record, perhaps the Conservative party should see what it can do to build on it.
	I turn briefly to Lords amendments 8 and 9. I am sure that many Members have heard from a number of their constituents about them, and I wish to talk about someone who wrote to me yesterday. She is a sufferer of multiple sclerosis. She wrote:
	“I’m writing to ask you to support the amended Bill and ensure Clauses 13 and 14 remain out of the Bill when it is debated in the House of Commons. If this benefit were reduced, it could have significant implications for people who have MS and other people living with a long-term condition, in some cases making their health worse and pushing them even further from employment. Having a long-term condition such as MS is expensive. It adds extra costs to finding employment or training that people who receive jobseeker’s allowance don’t experience. These costs include things like paying for taxis to get to and from interviews.
	Lord Low’s review of the proposed reductions in ESA also found no evidence to support the Government’s argument that £30 was a disincentive to work, which has been given as a rationale for these Clauses. The report also highlighted the negative impact that this reduction would have for people with disabilities like MS . Keeping clauses 13 and 14 in the Bill doesn’t make sense.”
	I could not put it any better. We have received a great deal of testimony from our constituents, along with the excellent review by Lord Low and Baronesses Grey-Thompson and Meacher, which the Government have simply ignored. I ask the Minister to think again and listen to the people who know something about the possible impact of this policy.

Paul Scully: I should like to speak to Lords amendments 1 and 8. In looking at child poverty, I am worried about the numbers for the income targets that we have discussed. My concern is that the Government are effectively just managing the situation, rather than tackling the problem. The Bill seeks to refocus our approach so that we concentrate solely on tackling the root causes of poverty, rather than wringing our hands and looking at the symptoms.
	Between 2003 and 2008, the Government spent roughly £300 billion on child poverty, but the figures remained broadly unchanged. Such examples show that we need a different approach. We have heard that the reporting of incomes has had a perverse effect on child poverty. In a recession, poverty can decrease. Conversely, in periods of economic growth poverty can go up.
	Let us concentrate on those root causes. The deadline for the elimination of child poverty has been discussed, but we need to think how we would meet an arbitrary deadline if we do not understand what we are trying to tackle. We need to understand the root causes of poverty, and focus on those.
	The Minister has made a commitment to continue to publish the figures on low incomes in the annual report on households below average income. The report uses national statistics, so it is guaranteed on that basis. As I have said, we have heard the Minister’s commitment to publishing those figures every year. We have been asked by the Opposition if the figures can be reported alongside information on life chances. However, that reinforces the perverse consequences that can result, so it is important that we focus solely on what will help to eliminate child poverty.
	Turning to changes to ESA, 61% of people in WRAG want to go back to work. The majority of people who are out of work want to go back to work, so it is important that we focus support and help people. We should offer a safety net for people who cannot go back to work, and we should do everything that we can to support people who can go back to work and want to do so. WRAG was set up with good intentions, but unfortunately it has not been effective enough. It is not right that we have a system in which only one in 100 people can find work, whereas one in five JSA claimants go back to work.
	The intermediate WRAG arrangement has become a long-term waiting room, entrenching worklessness, because it focuses on the symptoms, not the root causes. That is why I am keen that we take the cash—up to £100 million a year by 2020-21—and repurpose it to address the needs of the people in that group.
	I understand the concerns of colleagues about what will be in the White Paper and how the process will work, but as a member of the Committee considering the Bill I have seen the dedication of providers, disability charities and support groups, their commitment to the people they seek to help, and the skills and experience they have. That is why I know that the taskforce that is being set up will help to bring in the expertise of the charities, providers, support organisations, think-tanks and local authorities. I ask colleagues to have faith in the experience and expertise of those people, which will give us a solid basis on which to spend that money.
	As the national living wage and personal allowances increase, we have an opportunity to tackle childhood poverty and bring people into work. We must make sure that work pays more than benefits, and that the system supports vulnerable people and is fair to people in work who pay their taxes.

Helen Goodman: I begin by addressing amendment 1. The Labour Government had four poverty measures when we took through the Child Poverty Act 2010—absolute, relative and persistent poverty and material deprivation. We measured all of them. Between 1997 and 2010 we cut the number of children living in relative poverty by 1 million, and the number of children living in absolute poverty by 2 million. There is nothing arbitrary about this. It is important to have those measures because they are used across the OECD. That enables us to compare our performance with that of the other countries that UNICEF studies.
	Ministers want to abandon those targets because they intend to freeze benefits and cut child tax credits if there are more than three, four or five children in a family. Those measures will increase the number of children living in poverty. Because they do not want that to be evident to the whole world, they do not want to use the targets. We should not let them off the hook.
	We all think life chances matter. We are all interested in the correlations between the kind of childhood people have and what happens to them later in life. No one is saying that we do not want to measure those things, but I remind the House that not being able to go on a school trip, never having a holiday, not having a birthday party—these things matter in themselves because children are not human becomings, but human beings. Childhood is a part of life. The quality of life in the early years matters just as much it matters what our lives are like or what the quality of our parents’ life is like.
	On amendments 8 and 9, I want to bring into the House the voice of the people affected. Those in the ESA support group are not people who are not working out of perversity or because they have not done the arithmetic and do not know what the incentives are. They are not in work because the jobs do not exist, or because of the barriers to work. They may have problems with transport, they may be stressed, they may be exhausted or they may be struggling against extremely difficult odds. In my constituency there are 860 people in the ESA work-related activity group. I get letters from them and have meetings with them every single week.
	This week I heard from a woman who wrote:
	“My husband…has been in receipt of ESA-Support Group benefit…for some considerable time due to long standing health problems of both a physical and psychological nature. He has recently had to resubmit the…questionnaire and we have just had notification that he has been placed in the Support Group but this will only be until November…His last award was for three years.
	Considering the…letter from the GP”—
	and the psychologist—
	“we can’t believe the DWP think it is in any way appropriate to put my husband through this process twice within the same year…He will now spend…months worrying and becoming increasingly anxious about having to face the process again”.
	She adds that he is “extremely vulnerable”. Treating this group of people in that way is not helpful. Making them poorer, not helping them to heat their homes or to eat properly, and making them anxious about whether they can pay their rent is not helpful.
	The week before I received that letter, I had a letter from another constituent, who said:
	“I’m petrified. Atos did my ESA medical...yet they still lied. I’d told them my disabilities and…they didn’t mention any of them…I was called by a woman from the DWP who told me my ESA was cancelled. She seemed happy (really happy) to gloat about this…I had to live on my 9 year old daughter’s £20 child benefit and child tax credit for 4 weeks. It takes a split second to stop benefits but 4 weeks to reinstate.”
	She has now been told she must provide her own medical records, which will cost £500 because doctors are charging to provide them. She continues:
	“I can’t afford this on £102 a week…I’ve not slept in ages”.
	She adds that she has “cried a lot” because she knows what will happen to her.
	That is the situation people are already in, and we absolutely cannot see them pushed down even further. I appeal to the Minister’s better nature. I appeal to her to think again about amendments 8 and 9.

Kevin Foster: It has been an interesting debate so far. The Opposition contribution that was of most interest to me was probably that of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), and it is a pity that others did not take a lead from him.
	Let me start with the measures of child poverty. Using measures of relative income as the main driver can have some bizarre impacts. For example, we focus on those just under the line, not those who are most in need or most desperate, and we try to get them over the line to make the numbers work. As I touched on in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), that approach can inspire the view that making the whole of society poorer will end relative poverty, even though no one is better off. As we heard, the bizarre outcome is that a recession is, in theory, the best news when it comes to reducing child poverty, whereas, in a boom, things would be the other way round.
	That is why it is right to focus on creating real life chances. I speak as someone whose mother grew up on a council estate and whose father worked for 37 years in Devonport dockyard—he had to work hard with his hands to get what he could for his family. That is important: this is about social mobility and achievements such as those.
	A Scottish National party Member noted in an intervention that it makes sense to measure these things not just at 16, but all the way through education. There is perhaps more work to be done, therefore, and I look forward to what the taskforce says, but it is important to look at what our education system turns out at the end of the day. One example that has been given is that, a few years back, more children came out of Eton with three As at A-level, allowing them to get to top universities, than came out of the entire cohort of children on free school meals in England. That really is a thought-provoking point. We may disagree about how to tackle it best, but it is certainly no great compliment to our system.
	Employers with jobs want people with skills. They want to employ people and to put them into high-paid job. However, they find that people just do not have the skills or the ability to take those jobs up. That is where educational outcomes have an impact on life outcomes and on whether people stay in poverty. If people do not have the skills to move into employment, that opportunity is not there. That is why looking at the life chances side is so important in tackling poverty and preventing people from being locked into a cycle, with parents being in a low-paid job, children going into a low-paid job and grand-children going into a low-paid job.
	We have had an interesting debate about WRAG. The figure regularly quoted is that every month only one in 100 of those in this group gets off benefits and into work. I cannot imagine any other policy with a success rate of one in 100 where we would be hearing furious arguments defending it. In contrast, the figure for jobseeker’s allowance is one in five, yet many people will equally have had difficulties and barriers in getting back into work, and challenges in seeking alternative employment if they have been made redundant in one industry and need to transfer to another. I could understand it being a slightly higher rate, but the fact that the figure for those leaving WRAG is a twentieth of the rate for JSA shows that things are going wrong. Some may argue that it may be partly due to whether the assessments of who should be in the support group are being done correctly. The recent investigation of this issue by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member—perhaps partly explains the figure, but it does not go to the core of why it is a twentieth of the rate of people coming off JSA. That is not something to shout about and defend, but to condemn.
	I am pleased that the Government are looking to tackle this and bring forward these measures. The details that will come from the taskforce will give us more of a plan. The current system is not working—that is starkly obvious. I am therefore prepared to support the Government in making sure that we have support systems that work in helping people back into work, as well as the right targets to ensure that people can develop their potential and that more sons of dockyard workers and school teaching assistants can end up in this place.

Philippa Whitford: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), people in the ESA WRAG have been classed as not fit for work, unlike those on jobseeker’s allowance, so one would not expect the same success rate.
	My concern about this change—in essence, this repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010—is that the policy seems no longer to be about wanting to eradicate child poverty but about airbrushing it out of existence by removing the phrase, the measurements, and not just the reporting but the statutory aim of eradication. We see many measures: a benefit cap being reduced or a benefit freeze, changes to tax credits after having two children, and people in the ESA WRAG losing £30 a week. I dealt with patients like that as a breast cancer surgeon. These people are stuck at home; they do need to keep the house warm and they do need that extra bit of help. They have been classed as not yet fit to work. We have had impact assessments on some of these measures, but we have not had a cumulative impact assessment. Some families will be hit by all these measures, and the IFS is talking about losses of between £1,000 and £1,500 a year. To take that kind of money away from the poorest people will have a huge impact.
	Like the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I had the honour of taking part in the all-party group investigation into the impact of these changes on child poverty. We heard evidence from the Faculty of Public Health and from many charities on the changes that we can expect in child poverty and the impact that child poverty has on health. The University of Liverpool has estimated that we lose 1,400 children a year under the age of 15 because of poverty. That number is equivalent to the size of a big secondary school. If the roof of a secondary school was collapsing every year, we would be out there doing something about it, but we do not. This is about neonatal mortality, infant mortality, accidents, violence, suicide, addiction and alcoholism, and the problem is that we think we can just ignore it.
	Earlier in the debate, we talked about mental health. Children in the poorest quartile have three times the incidence of mental health problems. If their parents suffer from depression and stress, which we know is aggravated by poverty, they have a 60% increase in mental health problems. There is a five times higher incidence of infant mortality. The Marmot report estimated that the deaths of one in four children before the age of one could be prevented if their mothers had had the same nutrition, health, chances and lack of stress as the people who are most comfortable.
	Five times as many children who are in the poorest quartile are likely to die as a result of road traffic accidents, while 15 times as many are likely to die as a result of a fire. Malnutrition is on the increase. There is evidence of low iodine and low folate in teenage girls as a result of poor nutrition. That leads to cretinism and spina bifida. We are going to produce generations of children who will suffer in the future. Marmot said that disadvantage starts before birth and accumulates through life.
	I am not against including a measure of life chances. I do not accept that we have to choose between two separate horses. We can measure both. The only life chances that are being talked about are worklessness and educational attainment at 16, which is long after the horse has bolted. Two thirds of children in poverty have a working parent, so they will simply be dismissed. At 16, we have no chance to do something.
	I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Torbay that we need to develop measures, but we also need interventions. We keep hearing that there is going to be a focus on changing these children’s lives, but how are we going to do that? There should have been a White Paper first so that we could know what was being offered to change their lives, because they will cost us throughout their lives, through failed education, worklessness, ending up in the justice system and addiction.
	It makes sense to invest money in their childhood so that they are not a year behind. American research has also found that their brains do not develop to the same level as others. We need to change that, but we must not simply think that by ignoring the phrase “child poverty” it will disappear. There should be a statutory obligation to report it and we should aim, as was promised, to eradicate it by the end of this Parliament.

Stephen McPartland: It is a great pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak in this debate. I consider myself to be a proud and loyal member of the Conservative party, and as such I believe it is my duty to hold the Government to account and to help them when they lose their way. I am very proud to have had a number of conversations with the Minister for Employment, who is very happy to listen and talk. She is very welcoming and tries to work with others to achieve change. I was very happy with some of the reassurances she gave me, but I am sure that Opposition Members will be delighted to know that I will join them in the Lobby when we vote on Lords amendments 8 and 9 in about half an hour, because I am not happy with all the assurances I was given by others in the Department.
	I want to clarify a few things. On the ESA WRAG and ESA support group, we are talking about 500,000 people who have been defined as being too ill to work under the measures introduced by the coalition Government in 2010. They have already been assessed as needing more support to go into work.
	The fact that one in 100 are leaving that group and going into work is our failure. Something has gone wrong with the back to work programme. I am not proud of that. I was very keen to support the back to work programme, and disabled constituents of mine were very happy when we introduced it, because they felt that, for the first time in their lives, they would be given the opportunity to get out there and get real, practical support to get back into work. They do not want training sessions or to be taught new skills that are of no use whatsoever to them by a company that gets paid to do so. They are interested in getting back to work, and that is what I and the Government are interested in, too, but the problem is that, although we all want the same thing, we differ on how to get there.
	The ESA support group consists of people who are just too ill to work. We are effectively saying, “We’re not writing anybody off, but if you’re in the support group you don’t need to find work, we won’t really give any support and we’ll just leave you there.” I am concerned that, by abolishing the ESA WRAG for new claimants—the Minister has been clear that that does not apply to existing claimants—from April 2017, we will push more people into the support group. Someone with a progressive disease such as motor neurone disease, which is getting worse and worse, will end up being pushed into the support group as fast as possible. I have a problem with that.
	The Disability Benefits Consortium has said that almost half of those in the ESA WRAG have mental and behavioural disorders, which include mental health issues, learning disabilities and autism. Before the debate, we had an urgent question about the Government providing an extra £1 billion for mental health. Almost half—248,000—of the 500,000 people in the ESA WRAG have mental health issues. With that £1 billion going to the NHS, we have to wonder what we can do to support back into work those who have learning difficulties, autism or a variety of other issues. Some employers simply do not want them. Some small businesses find it very difficult to employ them. How do we go out and find them that opportunity? How do we find them a real job, as opposed to a fake job?
	Parkinson’s UK, Rethink and Mind jointly say:
	“This policy is poorly conceived. It will ultimately cause unintended harm and push sick and disabled people further from employment.”
	Scope has said that the changes will disincentivise disabled people from finding work and will create a greater incentive for people to want to be placed in the support group. Macmillan has said that the changes will have a significant, detrimental impact on people affected by cancer. The bottom line is that the charities with which the Government will work in the taskforce to help to deliver the changes that will be in the White Paper are very concerned about the changes and do not see how they will work.
	I do not accept that £30 a week is an incentive for somebody not to go to work. Most Conservatives do not accept that. Most Conservatives consider it to be their proud duty to look after the disabled. Ideologically, we have no issue about providing a welfare system that is a safety net for those who need support when they fall on hard times, to help people back into work. My concern is that the way in which the Bill will be perceived, and its practical implications, will lead some people who have disabilities to feel as though they are being pushed into the support group or into work.
	I have a technical question for the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer later this evening or in the next few weeks. If some of the original 500,000 people in the ESA WRAG find work but cannot cope with it, will they be able after April 2017 to go into something like the ESA WRAG, which will no longer exist? Or will they just have to push themselves towards the support group? Will there be an incentive to do so?
	There are lots of other points that I would like to make, but as we are running out of time I will make one quick point. We have heard that £100 million is being reinvested, but we are taking £640 million away, so £540 million is going. If we are that keen on it, why do we not reinvest the whole £640 million into helping people back into work?

Gerald Jones: I will be brief, because other Members have covered some of the points that I wanted to make. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill will create hardship across our country and push people further into poverty. Child poverty is rising, and independent projections from the IFS show that the fall in child poverty rates that we saw under Labour is at risk of being reversed. We hear from the Children’s Society that if the proposals in the Bill are enacted, we should expect child poverty to rise even more steeply.
	Research by End Child Poverty identified that 4.1 million families and 7.7 million children have been affected by below-inflation rises in child benefit and child tax credit over the past three years. One in five families said that they had cut back on food and heating because benefits have been increased below inflation. The Government’s attempts to mask the impact of child poverty by removing income as a measure will fool nobody. Child poverty should be something that we all recognise and want to combat. Sadly, the Government seem to be trying to bury the effects of their social security policies on child poverty; it appears that the Government are far from taking the situation seriously.
	The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has indicated that 1.5 million children live in poverty because their working parents do not earn enough to secure a basic standard of living. As was mentioned earlier, the commission stated in its December 2015 report that
	“it is not credible to try to improve the life chances of the poor without acknowledging the most obvious symptom of poverty, lack of money.”
	I believe that the Government’s position is just not credible.
	I turn to the Government’s proposals to cut ESA in the WRAG. If clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill are accepted, the financial support for claimants in that group will be cut by 25%, from £102 to £73. That will have a drastic impact on both disabled people who are in work and disabled people who are out of work. In view of the fact that the Government have committed to protecting support for disabled people, that is deeply worrying. This cut will not incentivise people, which is what the Government say they want to do. The cut has been opposed in the other place, and I hope that the Government will now listen and scrap clauses 13 and 14.
	I am concerned about the impact of the assessments on people with mental health problems. The significant cut, if clauses 13 and 14 are approved, may well mean that people with mental health problems become more unwell and that they cannot spend money on support and activities that would help them to recover, which will have an impact on their ability to move closer to work. Rather than increasing the number of people in work, the cut may actually hinder recovery and push people further away from work. Currently, there are nearly 500,000 disabled people in the WRAG nationally. The largest group is made up of those with mental and behavioural disorders, which includes mental health issues, learning disabilities and autism. We know from a parliamentary review that 69% of disabled people said that such a cut in ESA would cause their health to suffer.
	Finally, I believe the Government should accept Lords amendments 1, 8 and 9. I hope that the Minister will signal that she is willing to consider what action she and the Government will take to review this situation and to end the huge amount of undue worry and stress that the proposals are causing, particularly for disabled people. The Government need to show some common sense and compassion, and they should support the Lords amendments.

David Burrowes: I will speak to Lords amendments 1, 8 and 9. Let us be realistic: we can get involved in adversarial politics on poverty, but we are all in the same business of wanting to alleviate child poverty. Whether or not Lords amendment 1 is agreed to, we need to recognise that it would not in itself transform the lives of children in poverty. Similarly, the previous Government’s focus was on income-related measures, but they were not in themselves going to transform child poverty.
	The issue could be used, as it was in the speech by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), to parade the child poverty credentials of the previous Labour Government. We could spend our time—we have not got much time—criticising that approach and saying that it did not get to the root causes of poverty and truly transform the outcomes for those most in need.
	Lords amendment 1 is about reporting data and about how to focus activity, including Government measures, on those who are most in need. We need to ask what will focus Government policy on this issue like a laser. Despite some of the lurid claims, not least those made by the hon. Lady, the policy was not in any way a device to hide cuts. Let us get rid of that idea, because that is not what this is about. This is about making a genuine attempt not so much to redefine child poverty, but to refocus attention on its root causes.
	As has been seen during the long passage of the Bill, this reiteration of the policy has had cross-party support, as well as support from many NGOs involved in fighting child poverty, particularly the Centre for Social Justice, which has worked hard in this area. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, hit the right tone. We want to ensure that we do not distract attention from what is needed to transform people’s life chances. That is what the issue is about.
	I am concerned about what Lords amendment 1 would do. This well-intentioned amendment received support from many in the other place, but it would go back to and reintroduce arbitrary measures. Such points have been made—I will not repeat them—by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). For example, Lords amendment 1 would risk the reintroduction of measures based on current parental income, which would take away the focus on raising attainment and on increasing life chances for disadvantaged children.
	I do, however, have a way forward to propose. I cannot deal with it in relation to Lords amendment 1, which will simply reintroduce child poverty measures with all their failings, but we must look for such a way that recognises the potential opposition in the Lords. As we all acknowledge, financial poverty has a significant effect on life chances. We cannot ignore that, and Government publications on such measures have proved that point. We must therefore look at how to make reference to financial poverty, but keep the particular focus on tackling the risks to life chances.
	Eventually, if the Bill goes back to the other place, I propose that consideration is given to an income measure that will act not as a focus in itself, but as a gateway to other measures, and that will ensure Government policy is directed, as it currently is, to those most in need of support. We should consider introducing a gateway measure for families based both on whether they have a low income and on life chances risk measures, with a particular focus on those in permanent poverty. It would ensure that maximum support is given to those stuck in poverty, and that the Government focus on those who are most in need.
	Briefly on Lords amendments 8 and 9, I share the concerns that were well rehearsed by my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). We met the Minister together. I recognise that the Minister and the Secretary of State have a genuine commitment to this as a reforming measure.
	We really need to get the White Paper out there so that the Government’s commitment to reform can be seen clearly.
	I recognise that the WRAG is not fit for purpose, as only 1% are getting into work, but it does have a purpose. It has a purpose for the most vulnerable individuals, for whom the financial element of £30 really matters. The way we show our compassion is in how we treat the few, not the many. For those few people, that £30 will have a big impact on their lives. Whether we like the WRAG or not, whether we think these people should be in the support group, which they may well be moved into, or benefit from PIP, they are concerned about the loss of this payment. When dealing with those with progressive illnesses, remitting illnesses or mental health conditions—the Government’s commitment of £1 billion of investment is wonderful—what we do must be matched by careful concern.
	As we move towards 2017, with the flow of new applicants, we must do all we can to reassure everyone that we are in the business of reform. We must not only enable more people to get into work, but deal with the practical elements. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned energy costs. That is undeniably an issue that must be dealt with practically. I will support the Government tonight, but we must get the White Paper out and show our practical support in meaningful ways before 2017.
	I will hold the Government to account, as will my hon. Friends, to ensure that we deliver. We must show that we are on the side of these people, we must show our compassion and we must do all we can, for example through Disability Confident events like the one that I have on Friday, to show that we are on this in a way that previous Governments have not been. We must show that we want to see people’s lives transformed through work, but also that we will support people with the safety net, which we are proud of. Even after the WRAG measures, we are more generous than the previous Government were in relation to the disabled. We must not be deflected from the task of supporting people into work and supporting people in the safety net. It is not a pull factor—let us not make that case. We want to reform the measure to ensure that it really works for people who need support and are not able to get into work immediately, but let us keep our focus, as the poverty measures will do, on those who are most in need. I will hold the Government to account over the coming months to ensure that they really mean what they say.

Eilidh Whiteford: Earlier today, I attended the vigil outside Parliament that has been organised by Disabled People Against Cuts to draw attention to this debate and to urge the Government to listen to what the House of Lords said about the cuts to support for disabled people and to accept its amendments. I will focus on Lords amendments 8 and 9.
	The proposal to reduce employment and support allowance for WRAG by about £30 a week for new claimants has been a focal point of this debate, precisely because the Government promised that they would not cut the support for disabled people and yet are doing exactly that. They have done it indirectly through policies such as the bedroom tax and the inclusion of carer’s allowance in the benefit cap, on which I am glad the courts have forced a U-turn; and they have done it directly through cuts to the independent living fund, DLA, Motability and Access to Work. Now, they are cutting direct financial support to disabled people through the measures in this Bill. They are putting sick and disabled people on the frontline of their austerity agenda, hitting the incomes of those who are already disadvantaged. These people are being asked to take the biggest hit, even though they had the least to begin with.
	The first critical point that we need to understand today is that to receive ESA, a person has to be assessed as unfit for work. Believe me, the bar on that is already pretty high. People who are too sick or disabled to work are placed either in the support group, meaning that they are not expected to look for work, or in the WRAG, where it is recognised that they have only limited capacity, but could potentially undertake preparatory activity with a view to returning to the labour market at some point. So let us be quite clear: the people who are set to lose out from the Government’s £30 a week cut to ESA are people who are not able to work because of their health.
	That is why the Chancellor was talking nonsense when he spoke about this measure removing “perverse incentives” in the benefits system. It is his logic that is perverse, although his choice of language is damning and revelatory. If someone is seriously sick or disabled, reducing their income will not make them better quicker. There is not a shred of evidence to support that ill-founded fantasy, but there is plenty of evidence that financial worries and the stress associated with work capability and PIP assessments have a negative impact on people’s health. A large and growing body of evidence suggests that hardship and stress slow down recovery and push people further away from the labour market.
	Some people affected by the proposed cuts will have faced long-term disadvantage because of a serious health condition or disability, and they may find it difficult to access the labour market or sustain employment. In contrast to ESA, jobseeker’s allowance is for the most part a short-term benefit. Depending on the state of the economy, the vast majority of jobseekers move off JSA in a few weeks or months, but those with long-term health conditions and disabilities are far more likely to face long-term unemployment. The barriers we face are very real, and many people will have to live on extremely low incomes for lengthy periods. Many also incur extra living costs simply because of their condition or disability.
	Having to get by on an extremely low income for an extended period is one factor that entrenches poverty among disabled people and those with long-term illness. People use up their savings and end up selling their assets, and they depend on others. The poverty experienced by disabled people is well documented, but it often becomes family poverty as other family members try to support loved ones financially from their own incomes, while providing unpaid care that limits their own earning potential.
	The cuts to ESA will cause real hardship and are quite unnecessary. They are based on a flawed and frankly offensive misconception that people with serious long-term health conditions are malingerers who need to be prompted into work with “tough love”. A large proportion of the people who rely on ESA are those who have become disabled or developed a condition in adult life—people who have paid taxes and national insurance contributions for many years previously, with the perfectly reasonable expectation that if they become unable to work for health-related reasons, there will be a safety net for them. That safety net must take realistic account of the extra costs of living with disability, and to reduce support is callous and plain wrong. Even the Lords recognise that, and the Government must acknowledge it and think again.
	The Lords also expressed concern about the implications of universal credit for working disabled people. We know that disabled people are more likely to work in low-paid jobs, and they are at higher risk of living in poverty. The disabled worker element of working tax credit currently provides support for disabled people who are in work to cover the extra costs that they incur by holding down a job—costs that in some cases would otherwise make it financially disadvantageous to be in work. With the move to universal credit, the loss of the limited capability for work element to everyone except those in the support group means that a lot of working disabled people will be around £1,500 worse off every year. Among those who will be worst affected are disabled working parents who currently receive the disabled worker’s element of working tax credit. Under universal credit, disabled working parents will lose that extra support.
	Around 43,000 families in the UK with at least one working disabled parent will take a substantial drop in income when universal credit is rolled out. As Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson pointed out in the Lords, a couple with two children and both parents working in low-paid jobs, where one parent has become disabled, could receive a massive £3,000 less in 2017. The Government say that they want to improve employment support for disabled people, but slashing the incomes of those who are already in work, and who depend on that support to keep them in work, is not the way to go about it. Surely the Government have learned lessons from the failure of the Work programme—we have heard quite a lot about that today, and I think they acknowledge that it has not worked.
	Surely it is far more effective, empowering and dignified to provide extra support directly to working disabled people, so they can spend it on the transport or equipment that they need to make work viable for them. Instead, the Government seem to think that it is more effective to take money out of the pockets of working disabled people, and give it to highly paid executives and private sector companies to tell those disabled people how to stay in work, without any of the resources to back that up. It makes a mockery of the Government’s claim that they want to support disabled people into work.
	The Government have based their whole argument on the notion that work is the way out of poverty, but they have conveniently ignored the fact that two thirds of children in poverty have parents in work, and that the introduction of universal credit will leave millions of working families financially worse off. The Minister’s claim that the Government want to support disabled people into work would be a lot more plausible if they had not already cut the independent living fund, mobility allowances and DLA—the very forms of support that help disabled people to get a job and stay in work. The Government now plan to cut support for working disabled people on universal credit. Their position is simply not credible.
	If the Government choose to ignore the Lords today and push ahead with these measures, it will be testament to an arrogance and unwillingness to recognise the needs of disabled people that has already seen them dragged through the courts for indirect discrimination. The Lords have made eminently reasonable amendments to the Bill that would ensure that those who need support get support at perhaps the most difficult time of their lives.
	I urge Conservative Members who are wondering what to do this evening to take heed of the experiences of sick and disabled people in their own constituencies—maybe even in their own families—and support the Lords amendments in this group this evening.

Jim McMahon: I place on record my thanks to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for the work that is being done to shine a light on the Government and expose them for what is a cruel attack on the people who can least afford it.
	It is clear that the Minister believes poverty is an inconvenience. On the Labour Benches, we believe strongly that poverty is an evil. What is the Government’s response? To see no evil, to hear no evil and to speak no evil. Why would the Government seek to hide the true scale of poverty, if not because they realise that, through their targeted attacks on the poor, including the working poor, poverty will increase? The Government do not want to see poverty, because to see it would be to expose it and would be a cause of guilt—if guilt is possible with this Government. That is why, through the benefits cap, communities will be displaced as towns and cities are socially cleansed.
	The Government do not want to hear the truth about poverty, either, because to hear it would create a noise so loud that the country would not sit back and take it. That is exactly why they want to silence charities such as Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society with the gagging Act that is the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
	The Government do not want to speak the truth about poverty, because to speak it would be hypocritical. They know that their actions are pushing more and more people into poverty and on to the breadline. That is precisely why they are blocking their own officials from publishing data on the number of people living in true poverty. We can talk about life chances, and we know how important education, health and housing are, but let us be honest: if you have to put the electricity or gas on, or put a uniform on the backs of your children, or make a decision about whether you or your children eat, then money is very, very important.
	That evil affects too many families in Oldham West and Royton. Take the Coldhurst ward in my constituency, where more than 51% of children are growing up in families in poverty. Take Oldham as a town, where 40% of children are growing up in families living in poverty. It is getting worse, not better, under this Government. That is not surprising. Could any Member in this Chamber really live on £13 a day to cover food, heating, electricity, clothes, transport and toys for the children? There are too many mothers who go hungry just to feed their children. By 2021, it is estimated that
	1 million more children will have been pushed into poverty. No wonder the Government do not want to report on how many people are living in poverty. It is a national scandal.
	Research by the Children’s Society—a charity still able, at the moment, to give a voice to those who need one—highlights that 14,400 children in my constituency alone live in working households that will be affected by the freeze on benefits. As corporations such as Google laugh all the way to the bank, it is for my constituents to queue at the food bank. Not measuring how many people are in poverty is like driving a car with the instrument dashboard disconnected: you do not know how fast you are going; you do not know how long you have been going, or the distance you have travelled; you do not know whether you have enough fuel to last the distance; and you do not know if the car is overheating until it is too late. This is the real crux of the issue: the Government’s view is clearly that the welfare system is not a well maintained machine to be looked after and to last but a banger to drive into the ground and send to the scrapheap.

Marie Rimmer: It has been a regular occurrence in my nine months in Parliament that we face another lamentable situation in which this Government, and specifically the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, are called upon to think again. Opposition Members in the other place have once again provided us with an opportunity to pause for reflection.
	I wish to focus my remarks on the cruel and utterly devastating cuts to employment and support allowance for those in the work-related activity group. Let me set that out in context. A cut of £30 a week would have a huge impact on nearly all affected families and individuals in this country. We have heard in previous debates about tax credits and universal credit about the kind of impacts such a drop in income would have. The amount of £30 a week is equivalent to raising council tax for a household in a band D property in St Helens by 7.5% every year for the next decade. This cut does it in one go.
	Child benefit is £20.70 a week for the first child and £13.70 for an additional child. When the Government proposed to withdraw those amounts from individuals earning enough to pay the 40% tax rate, putting them among the top 15% of earners in this country, they produced huge outrage among Government Back-Bench Members. There were newspaper campaigns—
	Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 310, Noes 277.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F.)

Clause 13
	 — 
	Employment and support allowance: work-related activity component

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(Priti Patel.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 306, Noes 279.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Universal credit: limited capability for work element

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.—(Priti Patel.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 304, Noes 280.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 7 and 10 to 33 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 2 to 6 and 11.
	Lords amendment 34 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 34.
	Lords amendments 35 to 57 agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 8 and 9;
	That Neil Gray, Holly Lynch, Amanda Milling, Guy Opperman, Priti Patel, David Rutley and Owen Smith be members of the Committee;
	That Priti Patel be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Guy Opperman.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

David Mundell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I confirm that this afternoon the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments have reached agreement on the fiscal framework? This is the arrangement that underpins the significant new powers being delivered to the Scottish Parliament by the Scotland Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place. I believe that this agreement will allow the Bill to proceed through this Parliament, and I hope very much to receive a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. I intend to make a full statement to the House tomorrow, and I will this evening appear by video link before the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee, but I wanted to use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to the fact that this significant agreement has been concluded. It will allow the Scottish Parliament, after the forthcoming Scottish elections, to take on the significant new powers in tax and welfare that will make it one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that this agreement has been concluded.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The House will note that he will make a statement to the House tomorrow, which will be the opportunity for the House to discuss this matter, but he was absolutely right to bring this information to the House as soon as he was able to do so.

Angus Robertson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to congratulate the Scottish and UK Governments on reaching a funding deal for devolved Government in Scotland, and is it appropriate to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for giving me personal advance notice of his point of order? I look forward to his statement tomorrow. I think it is appropriate to commend First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Finance Secretary John Swinney for their efforts in fending off Treasury attempts to short-change Scotland to the tune of £7 billion. It would also be churlish not to acknowledge the final acknowledgement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the rule of no detriment was key to reaching success between the Scottish and UK Governments.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has duly given notice to the House of the arguments he will make tomorrow.

Ian Murray: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and indeed to the First Minister and the Finance Secretary in Scotland, on reaching this agreement? It shows us that when two people want to tango, they certainly can dance. Will the Secretary of State indulge the House by letting us know whether we will see some of the documentation before the statement tomorrow? This is a hugely complex agreement with significant figures, and I wonder whether it will be possible to get advance sight of the fiscal framework well ahead of tomorrow’s statement.

David Mundell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am able to confirm that the documentation will be available for scrutiny. On the timing of my statement, I cannot commit to exactly when it will be.

Chuka Umunna: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you might provide some advice and give me your view. This afternoon in our proceedings, we were scheduled to have a Backbench Business Committee debate on serious youth violence and gang violence, which are blighting many of our inner-city areas. Unfortunately, because our business is overrunning, we will not have time for that debate and I will not be able to move my motion. However, do you not think it appropriate that we send out a message today, for those who may not be familiar with the proceedings of the House of Commons, that the fact that this debate has been delayed in no way sends a signal that this House does not appreciate the importance of the issue? I am pleased to inform the House that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has indicated to me that an alternative slot will be found for us to have the debate at the earliest opportunity, which I hope will be next week.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not strictly a point for the Chair to deal with. However, I commend him for taking the opportunity to make that very important point for those who are not familiar with the proceedings of this House, and to emphasise the fact that the subject matter of the debate that he tried to instigate today is extremely important and taken very seriously by Members from all parts of the House. I sincerely hope that the Backbench Business Committee will find time in the near future, when I am quite sure that the House will welcome the opportunity, to debate the hon. Gentleman’s very important motion.

Education and Adoption Bill (programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Education and Adoption Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 22 June 2015 (Education and Adoption Bill (Programme)) and 16 September 2015 (Education and Adoption Bill (Programme) (No.2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Gibb.)

Education and Adoption Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Nick Gibb: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
	Lords amendments 2 to 6.
	Lords amendment 7, and amendments (a) to (d) thereto.
	Lords amendment 8, and amendment (a) thereto.

Nick Gibb: I am pleased to welcome the Education and Adoption Bill back to the House for consideration of amendments made in the other place. As a result of the careful scrutiny of both Houses and the strong advocacy of my noble Friend Lord Nash, the Bill returns to the House in good shape and with the potential to ensure that many more children and young people have the opportunity to realise their full potential.
	Since 2010, educational standards in England have risen rapidly, and 1.4 million more pupils are now taught in schools that are judged by Ofsted to be good or outstanding. More than 80% of our schools are now good or better. Further improvements are required, however; 1.5 million pupils are still taught in schools that Ofsted judges to be less than good. To deliver educational excellence in every part of the country, we need a school system that consistently delivers high academic standards. This Bill brings forward important reforms to raise standards across the country. It will speed up the process by which failing maintained schools become sponsored academies, introduce new measures to allow us to intervene in coasting schools for the first time and ensure that we have consistent powers to take swift and decisive action when academies underperform.
	Alongside reforms to improve school standards, the Bill introduces a reform to the adoption system so that more of our most vulnerable children can find stable, loving homes without delay. The way the sector has embraced the challenge of regional adoption agencies has been impressive, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families has recently announced that future funding will be available to support the sector during the transition. The move to regional adoption agencies is a widely supported manifesto commitment, and I have been delighted to see the support from across the House and in the other place for the Government’s vision. I am pleased to confirm that the adoption clause, clause 13, stands unchanged from when the Bill was first introduced.
	There are eight Lords amendments to the education provisions for the consideration of the House, and the Labour party has proposed changes to two of the Lords amendments. All eight of the Lords amendments were either Government amendments or amendments that were supported by the Government, and each was accepted by all sides in the other place without a Division. I hope that we will be able to reach the same conclusion today.
	Lords amendments 1 to 5 relate to coasting schools. I want to speak to the most substantive amendment in the group first, Lords amendment 5, regarding parliamentary scrutiny of the coasting regulations. The Government recognise the importance of Parliament scrutinising the detail of the coasting definition. Lords amendment 5 therefore requires that coasting regulations to be made under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure the first time they are laid. Subject to parliamentary timetabling, we hope that that will take place once the 2016 performance data have been published and before any school is formally identified as coasting for the first time. In making the change, the Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both this House and the other place regarding appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the coasting definition.
	Subjecting the regulations to the affirmative procedure when they are laid for the first time represents the most proportionate approach. It will allow both Houses to scrutinise and approve the detail of the final coasting regulations without creating an ongoing burden on parliamentary time. Minor and technical changes could be required to the regulations following the publication of school performance data, which currently takes place twice each year, or as a result of changes to the layout or content of performance tables. Such changes would of course be uncontroversial, but if the regulations were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure each time we made such changes, they would require a full debate in both Houses. Under the negative procedure, Members of both Houses can still call a debate should they have any concerns about the changes proposed.
	Lords amendment 1 seeks to improve the drafting of the Bill and to remove any unintentional element of subjectivity that could be read into its original wording. The original text states that a school will be eligible for intervention when it has been notified that the Secretary of State “considers” it to be coasting. We have been clear from the outset that we want schools to be certain about whether or not they meet the coasting definition. That is why our proposed definition is firmly based on school performance data. To ensure that schools are not left in any doubt about this, Lords amendment 1 proposes to revise the wording of clause 1 to remove the term “considers”. In doing so, it clarifies that whether or not a school is coasting is based on the absolute terms of the definition.
	Lords amendment 2 provides the Secretary of State with the power to disapply the coasting clause of the Bill from certain types of schools. As currently drafted, the Bill would apply to all maintained schools, as defined in the Education and Inspections Act 2006, including special schools and maintained nursery schools. We have no intention of applying the coasting definition to some of those schools, such as maintained nursery schools, which is why we have proposed this change.
	Lords amendment 3 would change the Bill’s wording to ensure the Secretary of State must make regulations to define coasting. Amendments seeking this change were tabled by the Labour party in this House, and the Government supported the amendment when it was brought forward in the other place. It has always been our intention that coasting regulations be made, and this Lords amendment will remove any doubt.
	The final amendment to the coasting schools clause, Lords amendment 4, is consequential to Lords amendment 1, and is a technical change to ensure correct cross-referencing within the clause. Lords amendment 6 is also a consequential and technical amendment to make explicit two further sections of the Education and Inspections Act. I will not go into any further detail about that.
	Lords amendment 7 will ensure that parents are kept informed when their child’s school is causing concern. Their ability to understand the action that is being taken to bring about improvements has been an important issue throughout the passage of the Bill. In response, the Government brought forward Lords amendment 7, which we hope will provide assurance that parents will always be kept informed when underperforming maintained schools are becoming sponsored academies.
	Every parent wants their child to attend a good school. It is right that they demand quick, effective action when concerns arise. We are clear that becoming a sponsored academy will always be the solution for a maintained school that is judged inadequate by Ofsted. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment in that respect.

John Pugh: The Minister mentions parents. Does the balance of the Bill not concern him in that it gives at least seven new powers to the Secretary of State, but not one new power to parents?

Nick Gibb: The amendments we are debating give parents an additional entitlement to receive communication from the new sponsor of an academy while the process is being undertaken. We are unapologetic about the powers we are taking in the Bill, because we want to tackle all failing schools from day one when they become failing. That was in our manifesto, so this Bill is helping us deliver yet another manifesto achievement.

Mike Kane: Does the Minister not worry that there is no proper procedure for a good school to decouple from a failing multi-academy trust? Time and again in my constituency, we see MATs that are not doing so well. I do not want to name the schools, but the Secretary of State knows about them because I have written to her personally about the issue. There is no proper procedure for such schools to decouple and we need one.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but the regional schools commissioners, of which there are eight around the country who know the local conditions and the local schools, will take action—indeed, they are taking action—when a multi-academy trust is failing to raise standards in its schools. We have taken action over 120 times to remove schools from multi-academy trusts that have not been delivering the support and sponsorship that we seek.
	Once a sponsor has been identified for a failing school, it is commonplace for the sponsor to engage with parents about its plans for the school to ensure that they know what to expect. Often, parents are given the opportunity to share their views about any changes that the sponsor proposes to make. Lords amendment 7 will ensure that there is greater consistency for parents because the sponsor that is identified to take over a maintained school that is eligible for intervention will always be required to communicate to parents its plans for improving the school before the school is converted into a sponsored academy.
	The hon. Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) have proposed four amendments to Lords amendment 7 that would replace the requirement on the proposed sponsor to communicate information about its plans to parents with a requirement for sponsors to consult parents about their improvement plans. I hope the House will recognise that that proposed change is more than just semantics. To ensure that underperforming schools are turned around as quickly as possible, clause 8 removes the requirement to consult on whether the school should become an academy so that that process cannot be misused to delay decisive action.

Nicholas Dakin: rose—

Nick Gibb: The Government consider that to be an important step that will allow failing schools to begin receiving the expert leadership and support that the hon. Gentleman seeks from day one.
	Underperforming schools are carefully matched to sponsors. Trusting educational professionals to improve schools based on their experience and expertise is central to the academies programme. The proposal to impose a requirement on sponsors to consult parents about their plans to improve a school would represent a return to the rigid approach that allowed vested interests to prevent sponsors from taking decisive action and to delay the process of transformation.

Lucy Frazer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposals offer flexibility? Although there is no obligation to consult and discuss, it is always open to the regional schools commissioner and the school to discuss the issue and consult as much as possible. For example, there is a school in special measures in my constituency and the regional schools commissioner and I have had a meeting with parents to discuss the situation at the school and the potential new sponsor. It is always open to those who are involved in education to consult as widely as possible.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right, and nothing in the Bill prevents any amount of consultation, or a new sponsor from talking to staff, parents and so on. The amendment imposes a requirement on sponsors to communicate with parents. Elsewhere the Bill also prevents ideologically driven organisations and community groups that are determined to prevent a failing or underperforming school from becoming an academy from doing so. We will not tolerate failure in our school system, and we want to take action from day one.

Nicholas Dakin: Nobody will tolerate failure in schools. Will the Minister provide evidence of where the consultation has resulted in obstruction by vested interest?

Nick Gibb: In Committee I gave the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee ample illustrations of that. One example was Downhills school in Haringey, which was deeply underperforming. The process of conversion to an academy—it is now run by the Harris Federation—was drawn out, which delayed improvement in that school. It is now a highly performing primary school in Haringey, and it provides a much better quality of education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want such a process to be delayed in future.
	Amendment 8 relates to underperforming academies. We have always been clear that we will tackle under- performance wherever it occurs, whether in a maintained school or an academy. We recognise, however, that our formal powers on failing and coasting academies vary depending on the terms of an academy’s funding agreement. In some cases, particularly in earlier academies, that can restrict our ability to take action as strongly or as swiftly as we would want. Regional schools commissioners already take swift and effective action to secure improvements in a minority of academies that underperform. We have issued 134 formal notices to underperforming academies and free schools, and we have moved to change the sponsor in 124 cases of particular concern.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister will know that I have an academy in my constituency, which my middle son attends. It was an excellent school when he started out, but unfortunately it began to require improvement and is now inadequate—indeed, Ofsted is there today. The regional schools commissioner has no powers to intervene in that academy, so will the Minister clarify that these powers will give Vicky Beer, the north-west regional schools commissioner, the powers she needs to go in and sort out the school?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman gives an example of where such powers are needed. Regional schools commissioners are industrious and energetic in tackling underperformance in academies, but some have older funding agreements. The new funding agreements have explicit powers for the Secretary of State to intervene, and amendment 8 seeks to give the powers of the Secretary of State, and through her the regional schools commissioners, to all academies, even those with old funding agreements that do not have the powers to intervene.
	In practice, Lords amendment 8 will mean that when an academy’s performance meets one of two triggers in legislation—an inadequate Ofsted judgment or performance that falls within the coasting definition—its funding agreement will be read as having broadly the same provisions as apply to failing and coasting schools in our latest model funding agreement. That will give regional schools commissioners consistent powers to move a failing academy swiftly to a new sponsor, and to require a coasting academy to demonstrate that it can make sufficient improvement. The same coasting definition will apply to academies and maintained schools, and where an academy is coasting, as with a maintained school, it will be given the opportunity to demonstrate that it can improve sufficiently.

Andrew Gwynne: Does the Minister also recognise, when the regulations are drawn up, that it is possible for a school to be “coasting” at what appears to be a relatively high level, but that nevertheless the children are underperforming compared with what they should be achieving?

Nick Gibb: Yes. Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The definition of coasting incorporates a progress measure, because schools that on the surface may look as though they are performing well could easily, when we look at the progress the children in that school make, fall within the definition of coasting. We are determined that every child, regardless of starting point, will fulfil their absolute potential. Whether they are high performing or struggling, all pupils deserve the best education possible. That is the purpose behind using a progress measure in the definition of coasting.
	The Labour party proposed an amendment to Lords amendment 8, which would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to give the proprietor of an academy the opportunity to make representations before terminating the agreement on the grounds of an inadequate Ofsted judgment. The Government have included this step in their amendment as it is a requirement under the current model funding agreement, the contract between the Secretary of State and the academy trust. As I have set out, the effect of the Government’s amendment is to bring academies with older funding agreements broadly in line with the provisions of failing and coasting academies in the latest model funding agreement. Removing the requirement to seek representations would go beyond that and would fundamentally change the funding agreement, which is a contractual agreement for all academies. I assure the House that we have not set a particular timescale for the representations process in relation to failing academies, and we will ensure it is not lengthy and bureaucratic.
	I hope the House will recognise the clear progress made on the Bill since it was last debated in this place and will welcome in particular the amendments to ensure parents are kept informed of consistent, effective powers to address underperforming academies. I am confident that the Bill before us today illustrates the Government’s commitment to building a fairer society in which every child receives an excellent education and the best possible start in life. I hope that hon. Members are able to support the amendments. I commend them to the House.

Nicholas Dakin: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), who led for the Opposition when the Bill came through the House, as I do to all other right hon. and hon. Members who, as the Minister bore witness in his opening statement, contributed in Committee and in the Chamber to improving the Bill. I commend those in the other place who have worked hard at least to extract some small movements in the right direction, which come before us today in the form of Lords amendments.
	It is quite amazing that, when there are so many real challenges facing the education system on the Conservatives’ watch, the first education Bill of the new Parliament does nothing to tackle them: parents concerned about the crisis in school places; parents anxious about the crisis in teacher supply; parents worried about changes to the school assessment system. Parents get no answers to the things that matter to them from the Bill and this Government. Instead, the Education Secretary brings forward another Bill obsessed with structures, seizing more powers for herself while marginalising parents and local communities—the very people who understand their areas, their local economy and what their children need to succeed.
	Let us take the amendments in turn. I welcome the Government’s proposals in Lords amendments 1 to 5 that the coasting regulations will be subject to an affirmative procedure the first time they are laid. Hopefully, things will then become much clearer—they are still pretty murky at the moment. We do know, however, that primary and secondary schools will be identified on the basis of their 2014 to 2016 pupil results through a devised progress measure. We do not know when that final designation will occur for primary and secondary schools, with GCSE results about a month behind final key stage 2 results. We can only wonder how many schools will be identified. It could be 200, it could be 2,000.
	We do not know whether the measures will work. After all, the Schools Minister has form on promising to fix the problem of coasting schools. He came to this House in November 2011 to say that we must concentrate on the schools in the leafy suburbs that are not challenging their pupils as well as they should be. He promised that all schools would be subject to scrutiny to make sure that they raised standards and he placed his faith in the new performance tables that would identify how schools perform in relation to children of high academic ability as well as to those of lower academic ability. There is no evidence that the new panacea of academisation will be any more effective than the old panacea of performance tables.
	We welcome amendment 7, as it finally recognises that parents exist and have an interest in their children’s school. Frankly, though, it does not go far enough. The 2015 Conservative party manifesto boldly states that “power to the people” is “a core Conservative belief”. [Interruption.] Thank you. I am not sure whether that is right, but I do know that in this Bill that belief is not extended to the people most concerned about their children’s education—their parents. Surely parents deserve to be as fully engaged as possible in decisions affecting their child’s education. Where the ownership of the school is changing, they should surely have the right to be consulted, and not simply, in the Secretary of State’s words,
	“given the opportunity to understand just how a sponsor aims to transform their child’s school.”
	The right hon. Lady serves up advertising jargon when she should be giving power to parents.
	The selection of a sponsor is a critical strategic decision. As the Sutton Trust has shown, not all sponsors are as effective as others. Some are failing to provide an acceptable standard of education. Indeed, Ofsted recently said that the Academies Enterprise Trust, the largest academy chain, is “failing too many pupils” and that poorer pupils are doing “particularly badly”. None of us wants that. We are agreed across the House on that, but the reality is that that is what is happening in a number of multi-academy trusts. Ofsted has also branded standards at secondary schools at another multi-academy trust, E-ACT, as “too low”, while the performance of pupils from poorer backgrounds was “causing serious concern.” This is the chain that wants to cut local people out of governance arrangements, replacing them with “academy ambassadorial advisory bodies”—more jargon.

Stephen Twigg: My hon. Friend mentions Ofsted and power to local people. He may have seen the comments of Michael Wilshaw about Liverpool and Manchester. Does he agree that it vital to have solutions to bring about school improvements in great cities such as Liverpool and Manchester that are owned by local people and by local communities? Will he welcome the Liverpool challenge, which is seeking to address precisely the issues that Michael Wilshaw was talking about?

Nicholas Dakin: Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I pay tribute to him for the work he is doing with the Liverpool challenge to make sure that those schools continue to transform and deliver the best for the children in their care.

Mike Kane: To follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), Michael Wilshaw also commented today from London that Greater Manchester and Merseyside schools should have greater local involvement or more direction from local politicians. Has Government policy changed— we should now have a devolved structure for school administration—or has Ofsted under Sir Michael’s stewardship between 2012 and 2016 failed to improve standards?

Nicholas Dakin: I think everybody recognises the very good work that Sir Michael Wilshaw has done, but he lays down a challenge to us all when it comes to connecting what we want to do in a way that empowers local communities. In a sense, that is one of the things missing from this Bill.

Barry Sheerman: To follow that up with another quick intervention, does my hon. Friend agree that too few MPs get involved in school improvement in the local area? Many MPs of all parties talk about schools as though they were experts, but they do not roll up their sleeves and do what our hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) is doing—actually trying to make a difference on the ground.

Nicholas Dakin: I always listen carefully to what the former Chair of the Education Committee has to say, and he is right on this occasion. We all have a leadership role in our communities when it comes to supporting our schools and colleges and ensuring that they deliver.
	This is the second occasion on which AET and E-ACT—the two largest multi-academy trusts in the country, responsible between them for 85 schools—have received significant criticism from the Independent Schools Inspectorate. That is telling. The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for holding academies to account, but, two years after Ofsted’s warning that the trusts were failing to raise standards, we are again being told that their schools are not delivering for many pupils. I am sure we all agree that that is not good enough, and that it illustrates the size of the challenge.
	Parents have a fundamental wish to be involved in their children’s education. A recent survey by PTA-UK found that 97% of parents wanted to be consulted when big changes were made to how their schools were run. When a school becomes a sponsored academy and the sponsor is chosen, that represents a big change and a big deal. Parents have an important role to play in challenging—and helping—school communities to improve, and their views should be taken into account at such important moments.

Steve McCabe: Might there be a risk that the Government are laying the foundation for future legal challenges against academy trusts if the duty to inform turns out to be a duty to misinform, because they misrepresent the information to parents and they are not allowed to consult on it?

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and I am sure that Ministers have heard what he has said. No doubt their legal advisers will have already looked into the point very carefully, but they may want—with his assistance—to double-check the position. Why the Government cannot trust parents is beyond me, but the House has an opportunity to put that right by voting for our amendments (a) to (d).
	There is real concern about whether the pool of current and potential academy sponsors has the capacity to improve additional schools. The Government’s own statistics show that only 15% of the 20 largest chains are performing above the national average, compared with 44% of maintained schools. Since September 2012, 75% of maintained schools have gained good or outstanding judgments, compared with 69% of academies. According to the National Foundation for Educational Research, in 2014 pupils at maintained schools achieved the same high standard of GCSE results as those attending academies. The facts suggest that the Government would help schools to improve by ending their ideological obsession with academisation, and pragmatically removing the bureaucratic barriers that prevent councils from intervening in underperforming schools.
	In my constituency, Priory Lane school received an Ofsted judgment that meant that it needed significant improvement. The governors indicated that they wanted to go down the academy route, but that they wanted a choice of academy sponsor. Owing to a lack of academy sponsor capacity, the Department for Education and the regional schools commissioner could offer only one option, so governors and parents were presented with a “take it or leave it” choice. Despite representations from all and sundry—including myself—the Government remained adamant that the shotgun wedding would go ahead.
	I understand where the Government were coming from, and, indeed, their sense of urgency and exasperation has been made clear today. In the event, however, owing to the skilled intervention of the local authority, a better solution was found. The school formed a federation with a successful partner, Westcliffe Primary, and that process is now benefiting both school communities. Ultimately, the local authority’s skilled intervention has produced a better outcome for children and parents—the very people on whom we should all be focusing. That is the sort of best practice that should be applauded and learnt from in the interests of children and parents everywhere. Of course we are pleased that the Government acceded to our arguments, and have included academies in the “coasting arena” so that action can be taken when necessary.
	We come to the 80 lines of amendment 8, which was inserted to recognise that academies—as we already know—can also fail or be coasting and need improvement. Academy governance is a mess. There are 5,000-plus academies and 5,000-plus funding agreements. The private contract, as opposed to public law, cannot work for such a large number. It is a bureaucratic nightmare.
	It baffles me that this Bill insists on treating schools differently depending on what type of school structure they have. If Ministers truly believe that no parent should have to put up with their child spending a single day in a failing school—to be fair, they have reiterated that today, and we agree wholeheartedly with them on it—and that leadership and governance should be replaced immediately, I simply cannot fathom why that would not apply to failing academies, too. Rather than double standards for pupils, there needs to be robust, purposeful action taken over any school that should be doing better.
	In conclusion, let me remind Members of the words of Sir Keith Joseph, one of the Secretary of State’s illustrious predecessors, in introducing his 1984 Green Paper:
	“Parents care about their children’s progress—how they develop and what they learn. They share the general desire for higher standards of education…We have not yet… allowed parents sufficient scope for discharging their unique responsibilities. Our education system is poorer for this. The Government now intends—while fully respecting the responsibilities of local education authorities—to extend its policies for raising standards in schools by enabling parents to improve the work of the schools.”
	This is an old-fashioned one-nation Tory who respected local authorities and wanted to empower parents. I applaud his words.
	How times have changed when it is now a Labour Opposition who have to remind a Conservative Government of the need to respect parents and recognise the role of local government in providing oversight and accountability. Amendment 8 goes a tiny way towards bringing improvement by stating what funding agreements should say—whether they say or do not—about Government action when a school causes concern. Much more robust legislation is required, and the Minister might like to indicate whether it is true that the Government’s much-touted next White Paper will ideologically academise the rest of the school estate. If so, will there be further reams of words trying to make sense out of nonsense?
	The Labour amendment highlights the fact that when an academy has an Ofsted inadequate judgment, the Secretary of State must listen to representations from the school’s academy trust before taking further actions. No such opportunity is afforded to local authority-maintained schools.
	The noble Lord Nash said amusingly in the other place when introducing amendment 8 that a myth had grown that Government
	“somehow favour academies and hold them to account less robustly than maintained schools”,
	adding:
	“That is not the case.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2015; Vol. 767, c. 2095.]
	He is clearly a dab hand at irony. The reality is that this clause further treats academies more favourably than maintained schools by giving them the right of appeal to the Secretary of State in these circumstances when maintained schools cannot.

Mike Wood: Is it the shadow Minister’s party’s policy to retain existing academies? We are a little confused as to where it currently stands on the issue of the academy system.

Nicholas Dakin: There is absolutely no confusion. We are just arguing that, whatever title there is above the door to the school—academy, free school, maintained school, university technical college or whatever—the same rules should apply, and all those rules should recognise the importance and the role of parents.
	Labour believes that all schools should be treated equally. There should not be preferential treatment of schools that are academies compared with maintained schools when either are failing or coasting. Academies that are failing should have no more rights than maintained schools that are failing. There should be a level playing field for children, parents and communities, whatever the structure of the school. Labour believes that a partnership with parents is key to a strong education system, which is why we continue to argue that when their child’s school is to academise or the academy’s sponsor is to be changed, parents should be consulted.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 6 agreed to.
	After Clause 12
	Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 7.— (Nic Dakin.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 187, Noes 302.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendments 7 and 8 agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 10 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Infrastructure Planning

That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind Generating Stations) Order 2016,which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 67), dated 22 January 2016, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

Companies

That the draft Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

Limited Liability Partnerships

That the draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 24 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145(3))
	That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 10 February:
	(1) That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2015-16:
	Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, insofar as it relates to the science budget; and
	Department of Health, insofar as it relates to end of life care.
	(2) That a further day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2015-16:
	Foreign & Commonwealth Office, insofar as it relates to the Spending Review 2015; and
	Home Office, insofar as it relates to reform of the police funding formula.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 24 February (Standing Order No. 41A).

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
	That the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	Question agreed to.

Financial assistance to industry

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
	That the Motion in the name of Secretary Sajid Javid relating to Financial Assistance to Industry shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Election of FIFA President

Damian Collins: The petition to the House of Commons from a resident of the UK states:
	The petition of a resident of the UK,
	Shows that in August 2009, Sheikh Salman, then Bahrain Football Association (Bahrain FA) President, was accused of using FIFA-financed sports development budgets to fund his unsuccessful campaign for the FIFA Executive Committee election; and that in a leaked letter received by the Al Bilad newspaper it was claimed that Sheikh Salman had spent upwards of 855,000 dinars (£1.6 million GBP) on his campaign and that some of this money had come from FIFA-financed football development projects, in particular Goal 1 (intended to help fund a new Bahrain FA headquarters), and Goal 3 (intended to provide facilities for the development of youth and women’s football); that after FIFA requested urgent information from the Bahrain FA regarding the misappropriation of funds Sheikh Salman did not comment until early September 2009, at which point he denied those claims, however the Bahrain FA did not dispute the contents of the leaked documents; also notes that prior to Sheikh Salman’s election to the Presidency of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) in May 2013, details of the flights that the Football Federation of Kyrgyz Republic’s (FFKR) delegation would be taking to and from Kuala Lumpur for the AFC vote were emailed to the private account of the ‘IT manager’ at the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA), of which a close associate of Sheikh Salman was Head; that three days before the vote, requests for support for 53 projects for Kyrgyzstan football to the tune of millions of pounds were discussed although there seems to be no legitimate reason for the FFKR, part of FIFA, to be seeking funding from the OCA, part of the International Olympic Committee; notes that the FFKR approached the OCA again after the AFC election asking when they would receive payment for their projects, which gives strong grounds to suspect that the FFKR voted for Sheikh Salman because they believed they would receive significant financial support from the OCA (including that OCA officials appear to have met officials from the FFKR during the AFC vote in 2013); and believes that this is a fresh ‘cash for votes’ scandal which needs urgent investigation.
	The petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to confirm that it would not support bids from the English Football Association to host FIFA tournaments should Sheikh Salman be elected as President of FIFA on Friday 26 February 2016.
	And the petitioner remains, etc.
	[P001673]

WASTE RECYCLING: SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Barclay.)

Chris Skidmore: After the heady political events of the past few days, I wish to turn the House’s attention to a matter that is rather more local, but nevertheless of the utmost concern to residents in my local area. It is a matter that has the power to win or lose elections—a matter that, as I am sure the Minister knows, local councillors mess around with at their peril. I am, of course, talking about local waste collection and bins.
	This is not the only occasion I have used an Adjournment debate to raise my concerns about waste collection services in my local area of South Gloucestershire. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will recall the memorable debate I had in the House on 30 June 2014, in which I raised constituents’ concerns regarding the introduction of a separate charge for green bin waste collection—dubbed the green bin tax—which was opposed by local Conservative councillors, but voted through by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. In that debate, the Minister was highly critical of the council for introducing what has been termed a stealth tax and imposing extra charges on residents for services that, if we are honest, should quite simply be paid for by council tax.
	Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall)—he is in his place and will contribute to the debate later—who had not yet been elected to this place, I collected more than 4,000 signatures on a petition opposing the introduction of the green bin tax. Local Conservatives also pledged in their manifesto to scrap the charge over the next council term. It is therefore welcome that, only last week, local Conservative councillors signalled their first move towards removing the green bin charge, reducing it by £6, with the aim of phasing it out over four years. The Conservative-controlled council was elected on a mandate to do that, and I expect it to meet its manifesto commitment.
	That just goes to show that debates such as this have the power to sway local opinion and to lead to a sea change in local policy. It is with that optimism in mind that I wish to speak about the potential changes to waste recycling in South Gloucestershire. South Gloucestershire is soon to face its greatest shake-up in waste recycling services in over a decade. As the local MP—I should probably declare my interest in that I am also a South Gloucestershire council tax payer and user of its waste recycling services—I wish to use this debate to ensure that my constituents’ concerns about this massive change are properly represented.
	The changes can be broken down into two components. The first is the welcome introduction of weekly recycling for all recyclable materials. Currently, we have a system where metals, glass and cartons are collected in a 55-litre green box every two weeks, alternating with the collection of paper, plastics and cardboard in three separate 60-litre bags. It is a messy, overly complicated system which, as any resident will know, clutters up the house and, once the bags are emptied, they risk getting blown across the streets. Thankfully, that will end, to be replaced with the weekly collection of a single recycling box with dividers to separate the various recyclable materials. So far so good: residents will now have the chance to recycle weekly all their materials, rather than having to wait for them to be collected every two weeks. But the second change will be far less welcome, as the black bin, which will still be collected every fortnight, is set to be reduced in size from 240 litres to 140 litres.
	The council’s reasoning for making these changes is clear. As a council, South Gloucestershire needs to do more to increase its recycling and composting rates, which have fallen from 53.1% in 2010 to 47.5% in 2015—though it would be interesting to know to what extent the introduction of a green bin charge has proved counter-productive in causing fewer people to recycle green waste. The council’s research shows that of the 44,868 tonnes of black bin waste that was collected last year, 52% could have been recycled. Given that any rubbish that goes into the black bin is sent to landfill, costing the council approximately £80 a tonne, we are literally throwing away council tax payers’ money. In 2014-15, £4.5 million was spent on disposing of black bin waste—23% of the council’s total waste budget. If the recyclable material in the black bins had been recycled, the council would have saved an extra £3 million—in effect, £11 for every man, woman and child in South Gloucestershire. In making this change, the council will be following Bristol City Council and Bath and North East Somerset Council in making similar reductions in their black bin size.
	While the rationale behind the reduction in size of the black bins is clear, I nevertheless feel that many residents will struggle with the change. Personally—I must put my personal thoughts on record—I feel that the reduction in the size of the black bin from 240 litres to 140 litres is a reduction too far. Other councils with far higher recycling rates have not reduced their black bin size by as much. South Oxfordshire District Council, which has a 67.3% recycling rate, has a black bin size of 180 litres, and Vale of White Horse District Council, with a 65.6% recycling rate, has the same bin size. Again personally, I believe that the change to weekly recycling will do enough to drive up recycling rates alone without penalising residents with the introduction of vastly smaller black bins, which, after all, have a significant initial capital cost.
	Although my hon. Friend and I welcome the weekly recycling, we have written to the leader of the council, Matthew Riddle, setting out our concerns over the proposed changes and suggesting amendments that could be made to the future of waste services in South Gloucestershire. In the letter, we have called for three key amendments to the council’s waste policy. First, there should be no reduction in the overall capacity of the waste services for householders. Indeed, we wish to make the case that South Gloucestershire Council should use the opportunity of this change to increase the amount of waste that it collects from residents, giving far greater value for money. To do this, we are calling for the council to give an unlimited number of the new recycling boxes to residents who request them. It will be up to local people to request the number they would like, but there should be no cap, so that people will be able to recycle as much as possible without restraint in capacity. A reduction in the size of the black bin—or the landfill bin, to give it its proper name—should be accompanied by a clear understanding that people will be given the chance to recycle more and to do so more often.
	Secondly, we have been contacted by many families with young children who are concerned that the change will impact heavily on them. I know exactly how they feel, as I am the father of an 18-month-old girl, and my wife is expecting our second child in less than a month—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. Indeed, I feel their pain, as I am sure does the Minister, given that he has a young toddler roughly the same age as mine. Therefore, to help those families who are struggling and overloaded with nappies and other waste that no one would ever consider fit to be recycled, I am calling for the establishment of a free universal nappy collection service for any family that requests it.
	Thirdly, the new single recycling box will, in all honesty, make things a lot easier for my constituents, but I would prefer a single recycling wheelie bin, which is what has been adopted by many other councils. However, if a single recycling box is to be adopted, elderly, vulnerable and disabled people may be unable to carry a heavy box and their needs must be taken into consideration. That could include allowing them either to keep a larger bin or to have some form of adaptive device that would allow the recycling box to be wheeled in place for collection.
	I hope that my and my hon. Friend’s requests will be considered seriously by the council when it makes its decision. This change will be significant for many residents and needs to be handled sensitively. I hope that my proposals do precisely that, and that they will help to create a better and more efficient way to recycle waste in South Gloucestershire.

Luke Hall: I am grateful to be called to speak in a debate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has said, the record books may not show to be as animated as others held this week. Nevertheless, the issue is still important to people in South Gloucestershire. I thank my hon. Friend both for securing this debate and for his tireless work and commitment on the issue over the years I have known him.
	Before being elected to this place, I made the case as strongly as possible, alongside local Conservative councillors and my hon. Friend, that recycling services should be enhanced and protected, so the issue is close to my heart. In that vein, I want to comment on South Gloucestershire’s draft waste strategy.
	I welcome the council’s proposed additional measures to provide the means for local people to reuse, repair and refurbish items from their homes, as well as the council’s affirmation of its confidence in the success of the Thornbury Revive shop and its commitment to consider avenues to expand that service.
	The draft waste strategy document produced by South Gloucestershire Council suggests that bulky waste is a significant contributor to waste going from our area to landfill. It states that the reuse strategy
	“aims to reduce landfill to below ten percent by addressing large bulky waste material.”
	Given that bulky waste is an identified significant contributor to landfill, I welcome the potential savings to South Gloucestershire that would result from a reduction in such waste going to landfill. That will help the council significantly in its aim to reduce the amount spent on landfill tax. In fact, the Thornbury Revive shop’s success in reusing more than 160 tonnes of material itself represents a reduction in that liability of more than £13,500. It is clear, therefore, that that approach has real potential to achieve an important part of the 5% reduction target for the total waste going to landfill.
	I also welcome the council’s proposed introduction of a weekly food waste recycling scheme. On recycling rates, it is clear that the majority of the best performing authorities provide a weekly food or compostable collection service. The proposed weekly collection of residents’ household recyclable waste is also welcome, because it will simplify the current service of three bags and one container.
	My hon. Friend and I anticipate that the proposed changes in recycling services will help to reduce the amount of money South Gloucestershire spends on sending waste to landfill. They will reduce the burden of paying £80 per tonne of waste sent to landfill while at the same time increase income through increased recycling revenue. I urge South Gloucestershire Council, as we have done in our letter, to use the total amounts of money generated under the proposals to continue to phase out the green bin tax. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the £6 reduction in the green bin charge as a first step to the council’s fulfilling its manifesto pledge, and I urge the council to use the extra funding generated by the changes to deliver that pledge fully.
	Although I welcome the proposed changes to recycling services, the proposal to reduce residents’ standard black bin, or landfill bin, capacity from 240 litres to 140 litres is of considerable concern. The dramatic reduction in capacity could put real pressure on families across South Gloucestershire, leaving some families unable to adapt. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs compiled waste statistics from our 16 nearest neighbour authorities. Of those, the nine authorities with a higher recycling rate than ours—from 48% to more than 60%—have a black bin capacity larger than the 140 litres proposed by South Gloucestershire Council. The only exception is Bath and North East Somerset Council, which provides reusable bags.
	Among the authorities with higher rates of recycling, there is an almost even split between those that offer a reduced bin size of 180 litres and those that offer a 240-litre bin. The only authority with a 140-litre bin, Northumberland, has a shown rate of below 40%, which is 7.9% lower than that in South Gloucestershire. In short, reducing the size of the black bin to 140 litres does not result in a directly proportionate increase in recycling. The widespread replacement of bins, in addition to the new recycling bins, would prove costly to local taxpayers with little absolute evidence that it would help families or the council achieve the stated aims of the strategy.
	The proposed changes will affect residents across the area. I hope that the suggestions that my hon. Friend and I have made will help to inform the best possible service for local people across South Gloucestershire.

Rory Stewart: I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for bringing this important subject forward for debate. I do not say that facetiously; the question of waste recycling in south Gloucestershire has its equivalents across the country. It is not simply a south Gloucestershire issue.
	I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood on the forthcoming birth of his child. It is very good news that in a month’s time a baby is coming. It is good that my hon. Friend is already thinking about the nappies. He focused on the reduction in the size of the landfill bin to 140 litres; the decision to move from a separate waste collection to a single collection in a box in which the different types of waste—plastic, paper, metal and glass—are separated by dividers; and the question of whether elderly people will be able to move the recycling boxes.
	Those are good points to raise, particularly as we are coming to the great moment of “Clean for the Queen”. It is a great ambition to create, for the Queen’s 90th birthday, that green and pleasant land of which Blake spoke. In Britain, we should take particular pride in that, because Britain has been famous for a long time for its neatness. Tourists who come here have long respected this country for being a tidy place. The steps that south Gloucestershire is taking show that continued commitment.
	The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate are particularly important because this country has more than 300 recycling systems. It is a little bit absurd. As we go from council to council, we see that some collect waste commingled, some—about 40—separate food waste, and about another 260 do not. There are different sizes and colours of bin, different types of truck, different types of recycling system and different types of anaerobic digester consuming waste. That all adds cost.

Stephen Barclay: Rubbish!

Rory Stewart: It is indeed. In London alone, we could probably save £19 million a year if we had a single standard recycling system. Across the country as a whole, the savings would be extraordinary. We spend more than £3 billion a year simply collecting waste. If we had a single, harmonised system across the country, we could drive up recycling rates, massively reduce the cost for ratepayers and achieve extraordinary things for the environment and for councils themselves. South Gloucestershire Council is therefore a good example on which to focus.
	That South Gloucestershire example is also a good illustration of some of the problems involved in realising such a dream. The council has taken some fantastic steps. It has separated the waste, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has pointed out, means we can get out the value. If we commingle the waste—putting the glass, paper and card together in the same box—it can be a real problem, even with modern methods, to extract the glass as it goes through the system. We should be able to get much more value out of the paper or the glass, which can go back to the council and the rate payer, if we keep the waste separate. The council has a good system for doing that in South Gloucestershire—a single box, with dividers to make separation easier.
	The challenge, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is making sure that the system is comprehensible to the public and something to which the public can respond and relate. I therefore encourage the points made by my two hon. Friends to be taken on board by South Gloucestershire Council, along with our congratulations on the direction in which they are going and on the national leadership it is showing.
	It seems sensible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, to look at the needs of the vulnerable and of large families. I believe that South Gloucestershire Council already takes into account the fact that if a family has six members, it may need a larger bin. The council may wish to show additional flexibility for exactly the kind of people mentioned by my hon. Friend.
	I do not wish to talk simply about the negative aspects—both my hon. Friends made very good points—but to look at the positives. If South Gloucestershire Council gets this right, we will have a national model. Why do we need a national model? We need one because South Gloucestershire Council is recycling only about 47% of its waste at the moment, which is not quite good enough. Wales, which has a pretty challenging geography, is currently recycling about 53% of its waste. If Wales can do it, there is no reason why England cannot do it as well. There are no profound cultural differences there.
	We are committed to getting to a recycling target of 50% across the country by 2020. We will get there by following the lead of places such as South Gloucestershire. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to work with the council to reach out to surrounding councils in Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and the south-west and try to encourage harmonisation. That can be done. Manchester has now got 10 councils together to come up with a single recycling system. It is investing hundreds of millions of pounds over the next 25 years to make that work.
	South Gloucestershire Council could be showing exactly that lead for the country—and, my goodness, we need it. The reason we need it is that we live in a world in which such resources are under pressure. We have talked about separating food waste. We are currently consuming 70% of the world’s water just on producing the food eaten by the current population. The average household in Britain wastes £65 a month by throwing away food that does not need to be thrown away. We are consuming and depleting resources—oil, precious minerals—that could be recycled and used again. We are creating a lot of unnecessary carbon by creating materials that could be recycled. We put into landfill 50% of the stuff that does not need to go into landfill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood pointed out.
	If we can get this right, Britain can be a national example, our great environmental industries can take off, we can export some of these skills and we can show the world that we are an environmental leader. We can also make British jobs and generate energy out of it, we can have a much better circular economy and it will be good for our production. Thanks to the fantastic contributions from my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, the South Gloucestershire example could be a very important part of such a solution.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.